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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wasn't Jesus refering to the Jonah STORY?

Mat 12:39-41 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;...The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

Our Lord Jesus called Jonah a prophet, not a story. And He verified the repentance of Nineveh to the preaching of Jonah.

"...we can infer with a high probability that a woman cannot give birth to a child without male sexual interaction. Of course, technically speaking, women CAN give birth while remaining a virgin today"

Science does have a fair amount of evidence. It has fairly good evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years.

BTW-I'm not a creationist who believes the everything was created in six LITERAL days. The text is murky and I'm not sure it states that. However people are mistakenly to think man "evolved" and the scriptures are wrong on this because it's not "scientific". Well neither is making an iron ax head float or a Virgin Birth. You can't pick and choose which miracle to believe in.

Are you saying that God is "fooling" scientific study regarding the age of the world?

A string of verses.....

Mat 22:43-44 He *said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET"'?

Yet you say this is "subject to interpretation."? But the ONLY doctrine that I stated doesn't have any support in scripture you defend by quoting some church father.

Let's summarize. You don't believe in the Genesis account of creation. You've argued that the Virgin Birth could possibly be done in other ways. You denied Jonah existence even when our Lord stated he was a prophet and preached to Nineveh. And you denied a string of prophetic verses including one our Lord Jesus interpreted. What you have defended was scientists, evolutionists, and flawed teachings.

Why do you think I am Catholic still?

I think my last paragraph answers that question.

Factual errors exist in the Bible,

Mat 8:28 When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way.

Mar 5:2-3 When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him, and he had his dwelling among the tombs. And no one was able to bind him anymore, even with a chain;

This story both in Matthew and Mark (Luke follows Mark's account) are about the same incident. Matthew states there are two people while Mark and Luke state there are one. It may seem like an error until one understands that it was Jewish custom in their writings (which Matthew follows in his narration) to only refer to the person speaking. Thus Matthew is simply following the Jewish custom of only referring to one verse Mark and Luke who more fully recount the story.

I bring this up simply because people often state there are errors when, in fact, they do not understand the context or customs of the writer. This btw happens a number of places with genealogy's, etc. As far as the species of a bat or hare I would have to see what verse you're referring to.

I will be the first to admit that I often scratch my head and say "where is love in all this?" But that is my failing and when I ask others to show me they can't either...

I will also be frank with you all: my faith comes from God and not from the Bible.

about

The scriptures are very clear, if there is ANYTHING that God cherishes more it is His word. He states time and time again; study the word to show yourself approved, hide the word in your heart so that we may not sin, listen to the word to get wisdom, cast the word and it won't come back void, and on and on and on. Psalms 119, the longest one right in the middle of scripture is devoted solely to the word of God. Our Lord Jesus is the living "Word" of God. Yet reading God's word is the very thing we resist. Now if God places such high stores on His word shouldn't we?

The Virgin Birth makes sense in our Salvation; drowning the whole world because we turned out wicked on God's watch is not as clear.

You may pick and choose your "miracles" but it's a poor way to interpret scripture and understand the nature of God.

Since you apparently do not believe Paul was shifting gears starting with verse 21, how long does Paul use words like "all" or "all men" and only refer to the Jews? I suppose you are going to tell me that verse 24 means that all of the unfaithful Jews are saved by grace? But wait, you already agreed with me that the reference was to the elect, not the Jews. This is very confusing.

Paul throughout is attacking proud Jews! Even into Chapter 4, when he uses David and Abraham as examples of people who were justified WITHOUT THE LAW!

"But now, without the law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets" 3:21

See, there are two systems of pleasing God. The first is under the Law. Those who try to consider themselves under the Law must fulfill it to the letter, perfectly. For any transgression against an infinite being is an offense against the entire Law and against God. Since ALL men sin over the course of their lives, these Jews, who are trying to earn their salvation by good deeds (without inner disposition of love) are failures.

The other system to come to God is through faith, under the system of grace. This system was in place even BEFORE Christ - as many people WERE righteous in God's eyes based on their faith and trust in Him. Abraham was considered righteous BEFORE his circumcision...thus:

"Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? No, but by [the] law of faith. Therefore, we conclude that [a] man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" 3:27-28

Remember what Paul had said previously about Gentiles who didn't have the Law???

"when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature that which is of the law, these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, accusing and also excusing their reasonings one with another) in the day when God shall judge that which men have covered up, according to my gospel by Jesus, the Christ. Behold, thou doth call thyself a Jew and art supported by the law and doth glory in God and dost know [his] will and approve the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law, and art confident that thou thyself art [a] guide of the blind, [a] light of those who [are] in darkness, an instructor of the ignorant" 2:14-20

A pretty clear comparision between the Gentiles who don't have the Decalogue, and those who do...

"For circumcision verily profits if thou keep the law, but if thou art a rebel to the law, thy circumcision is made [into] a foreskin. Therefore if the uncircumcised keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his foreskin be counted for circumcision?" Rom 2:25-26

Those who try to live under the law, and not faith, will fail.

he [is] a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit [and] not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God.: Rom 2:29

It is not following the Law that makes one justified, it is turning one's heart to God - this, naturally, becomes a Law onto itself. Inner disposition - faith - is what God desires to see manifested from us. Not simple following rules. Those who try to earn salvation must be perfect. Those who come to God through faith are justified in God's eyes. They rely on God's grace, a free gift. They treat God as a loving Father who will fulfill His promises. This is what Paul is saying in the first several chapters of Romans, not that all men are evil by nature.

However, based on the results I have seen, I cannot reconcile them back to God on every account. I do not see how scripture and Tradition can both be right.

So because infant baptism is not explicitly mentioned, yet IS by the first Christians, it never happened - or it happened without permission of God! Again, the Apostles who wrote Scripture were the same men who spread other teachings throughout the world that were taken for granted and were not addressed in letters to communities. As to your perceived difference between Scripture and Tradition, I don't see it.

After everything they had seen with their own eyes, what were the Jews doing while Moses was on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments? What did the Jews do in the desert to warrant their wandering for 40 years? How many times did the Jews grumble at Moses? If I put myself in their place, it would not have occurred to me to do any of these things if I thought my leader was an infallible teacher.

Certainly, they highly respected him, but that doesn't mean they would listen to him. Heck, we see this today in the Catholic Church! We have an infallible teacher, the Pope. But many "catholics" believe something totally at odds with him, such as abortion. Having an infallible teacher doesn't mean people are "forced" to follow such teachings.

Sola Scriptura has a solid foundation in scripture, which you have been shown.

You've shown me no such thing. I have given you verses that describe OTHER means of fully completing the Christian that doesn't mention Scriptures. Being "useful" doesn't make something the sole source of our faith, brother. And Sola Scriptura is actually ANTI-SCRIPTURAL, as it ignores what Paul said to the Thessalonians, when he commanded them to hold onto the traditions taught, both ORAL and WRITTEN. You would have Christians disobey the Bible's command! Sorry, Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men because it moves people away from some of the teachings given by God to the Apostles, such as Infant Baptism.

You're right, the assembling of the Bible was too hard for God, or maybe He just didn't have time. Thank God the Church for its witness and authority in assembling the Bible in all its wisdom

You have absolutely no proof whatsoever that God did anything regarding writing or inspiring the Bible WITHOUT the witness of the Church. Anyone can claim that a writing "inspires" them. As I said before, I can write a story and claim God wrote it through me...You are making a presumption that God had something to do with the Bible. And you have not explained how you know God had anything to do with the Scriptures. HOW DO YOU KNOW?

You are implying again that God plans His will around the decisions He already knows we have made. Yet, you will deny this!

You are putting God in time again.

I was supporting my view that God was in control of what went into the Bible, not men.

How do you know that?

The only way that is possible is if God saw man's choices, and then molded His plan around them. That infringes on God's sovereignty.

You keep putting God into time. God's decisions are made in the past to us, but in the eternal now of God. He sees across all time, so "when" He makes a decision, it "was" made both during creation, during the crucifixion, during WW 2, and 20 years from now. One decision spanned across all of our times. So in a sense, yes, He does see our response and makes His decisions at the "same time".

What infringes on God's sovereignty is a human claiming that he is saved despite future sins that would cause him to lose his future inheritance.

Regards

Our Lord Jesus called Jonah a prophet, not a story. And He verified the repentance of Nineveh to the preaching of Jonah.

And I called "Dilbert" a man, when he is a cartoon charecter...We really don't know if Christ was merely refering to a charecter in Jewish Scripture that was intended by the writer to be merely a parable. Personally, I am open to either possibility. It does not matter one way or the other whether there really was a prophet who convinced the entire capital of the Assyrians to suddenly put on sack clothes...

Are you saying the Virgin Birth didn't happen?

Of course I am not saying that!!! I am saying that science will never be able to prove anything regarding the Virgin Birth. This belief is based solely on faith.

That doesn't mean anything (age of the earth based on rock ages). It cannot be proven-only surmise. But the data from which they develop their "theory" could be flawed.

Scientists can figure out the age of materials using various means that can be duplicated over and over. Through such experimentation, they can "surmise" that a rock is a particular age. I am not aware of anything that has cast doubt on the age of the universe - at least it is over 10 billion years old. Even if science was wrong, say only one billion, that still forces us to re-consider our view on the scientific claims of the Scriptures. I personally don't think God is trying to tell us the date of the earth, but using a story, similar to a fable, that explains particular spiritual truths of His love for man and His creation of the universe out of nothing.

If I am wrong, that the earth is actually 6000 years old, how will this effect my spiritual growth and life in Christ? Frankly, it is a big ado over nothing. By refusing to countenance the earth's old age, you are merely making Christians look like foolish anti-science superstituous people. Until the evidence shows the contrary, it is more feasible to consider the creation story as a vehicle to tell God's plan of WHY He created us, and not HOW He created us.

You can't pick and choose which miracle to believe in.

Miracles still happen today - but we are not required to believe in them. Whether Scripture is relating an actual historical accounting of a miracle, or using a literary device to convey something of deeper meaning, it is not always clear. The Church does hold to particular miracles as being historical, such as the resurrection and the Virgin birth of Christ.

Interesting. Every single verse that I've brought up that has historically been interpreted as I have you question; even the statement David made about "my Lord". This was also the text our Lord Jesus referred to in support of Himself

Harley, we are on the same side here! I, too, believe that the Scriptures are pointing to the Messiah. But this takes a different approach to Scripture then a Jew would take. Quite honestly, the OT has different ideas of the Messiah. Very few people considered that he would be God or that he would suffer the death of a crinimal - or hang on a cross. A Sola Scriptura Jew would have a very difficult time coming to believe that Jesus was the Messiah without looking at the Bible from a whole different perspective. Thus, Christianity was an innovation for Jews.

You can't seem to follow my arguments. I am not holding to any of them per sec. I am merely playing "devil's advocate", looking at Scripture from a Jew's point of view. Quite simply, you claim that Christianity was a natural succession of Judaism. That shows very little knowledge of Judaism and how they looked at Scriptures. Early Christianity had very little success among Jews. It was much more accepted by Gentiles who didn't have the Jewish paradigm.

And as usual, you place people into a little box because you see things black or white - me vs. them. We just don't know if God was intending to give a scientific lesson on how the earth was created. Evidence in nature (which God created, by the way) tells a different story. Since the Scripture is inerrant, it is YOUR reading of it that must be wrong. It must be that God DIDN'T mean to discuss the astrophysics behind how the moon was created...

I never said I didn't believe in the Virgin Birth - I said science cannot prove or disprove it. It is a statement of faith, which, as a Catholic, I accept. And nor did I deny ANY of the prophetic verses. I am saying that the JEWS did not accept them. Perhaps you should read postings more closely before you make such sweeping and false generalizations. Nowhere did I say any of the above that you claim for me.

[Hd to jo kus]What you have defended was scientists, evolutionists, and flawed teachings

Next time you are sick, please call your minister and make sure you don't take any drugs, or seek medical help. Obviously, you believe that science is a source of false knowledge, which crumbles like a sand castle when confronted with biblical statements about the age of the world, the classification of animals, and so on. Why? Because, to you infallibility of the Bible is in the literal sense, like reading a fairytale.

When Galilleo showed crater-studded lunar surface to Roman clergy, they dismissed it as an "illusion" created by the devil the way my older daughter dismisses dynasaur bones (she learned that in a Baptist church, by the way!), "in order to deceive us."

The Church simply held the view, based on Scripture, that the "heaven" is the sky above us and that it must be perfect because that's where God resides, so the Moon, one of the celestial spheres, could not possibly have imperfections! That sounds like some arguments on this Forum I have seen thus far.

It is clear that the writers of both Testaments believed that God "comes" from the heaven (sky) above us (which is completely contrary to Orthodox/Catholic teaching of God as being a Spirit who is uncircumscribed and present everywhere).

When he showed that, by brilliant observations of Venus, that it was the Sun that didn't move, he was accused of "vehement heresy" and -- thanks only to his advanced age and fame -- sentenced to house arrest, having been exhonorated by the Catholic Church only in the 1992, after 350 years of official censure.

What was his "heresy" HD other than using reason that God gave us to discover how boundless and great His glory, made manifest in His Creation.

To this day, we have people who berate science as something "evil," or incapable of proving anything. You see, science is not concerned with why things work, but how. More importantly, science doesn't have to convicne you that it works. It simply does. So, your sad little jabs at science as being unable to show the age of the rocks, speaks volumes that your mind is still back 350 years with the accusers of Galilleo (who believed that the earth was flat).

The only reason I brought up things such as bats, hares and so on, is because we know for certain that the Bible is flat out wrong on those, which makes one wonder if that is simply because our copies are imperfect and the original was perfect, or because it really doesn't matter if anything in the Bible happened as it has been described, but rather that the spiritual message that was revealed to the writers is conveyed.

No, everyone is not lost until their next confession. First, all sins do not separate us entirely from God, so we aren't "lost" as a result of every sin.

I remember you have distinguished between venial sins and mortal sins, but still everyone commits mortal sins, so I thought your position was that they are lost until the next confession. Why else is confession necessary to salvation?

Second, we BOTH believe that man is lost until his "confession" - that "Jesus Christ is Lord" through Baptism.

Well, yes, except for the Baptism part. :)

My disagreement with you is over the CERTAINTY of eternal salvation and the inability to "lose" this status, regardless of future actions.

What you say is a OSAS approach, and I do not believe in that anymore. So, future actions do matter. I just believe in God's promises to His elect in that regard. Those actions are future included events to the salvation.

A person cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless he accepts Christ - whether that means your concept of that, or whether that means a person abides in Christ and loves, although not knowing WHO Jesus of Nazareth was. Your concept closes the doors to billions of people who happen to have been born in the wrong place at the wrong time.

How so? I don't declare for God who gets into heaven and who doesn't. God picks His elect and they will go to heaven. It only makes sense to me that He would also pick some who lived their entire lives without access to a Bible, etc. God is sovereign and makes His own perfect decisions for His own perfect reasons. I don't see how this is in conflict with my concept.

This [someone turning to Christ] can happen at any stage in a person's life, even on one's death bed.

I fully agree. God can do anything He wants, and your example of the thief is exactly right. I have always believed this.

I still can't sort out the free/enslaved will argument, but I found this part of a sermon by Rev. Spurgeon and I immediately recognized myself, I've always prayed as if I were a Calvinist, and believed my will to be deficient.

Excerpt from Spurgeon's Sermon: Free Will- A Slave
...Any one who believes that man's will is entirely free, and that he can be saved by it, does not believe the fall...
But I tell you what will be the best proof of that; it is the great fact that you never did meet a Christian in your life who ever said he came to Christ without Christ coming to him. You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer - for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying,
"Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not-that is the difference between me and them."
That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out. I ask you again, did you ever meet a Christian man who said, "I came to Christ without the power of the Spirit?" If you ever did meet such a man, you need have no hesitation in saying, "My dear sir, I quite believe it-and I believe you went away again without the power of the Spirit, and that you know nothing about the matter, and are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." Do I hear one Christian man saying, "I sought Jesus before he sought me; I went to the Spirit, and the Spirit did not come to me"? No, beloved; we are obliged, each one of us, to put our hands to our hearts and say-
"Grace taught my soul to pray,
And made my eyes to o'erflow;
'Twas grace that kept me to this day,
And will not let me go."

the movie was much more of an experience than a film.

When "The Passion" was out 2 years ago Ann and I were with our newborn son and could not go. At some later point she went alone, and I never saw the film till much later, when I rented it on DVD.

Come to think of it, there was a hesitation to watch it on my part and the circumstances played to the hesitation. The reason is that I knew enough of the film to realize that it is not a narrative movie like some others, but rather, exactly as you say, an experience. And I saw that as a problem. My visual imagery of Christ comes from Christian art, the icons and medieval western art. The experience of the Passion, on the other hand, is the experience of the Holy Mass, without cinematographic environment, of course. Together, the traditional art and the Mass form a perfect whole and I was afraid that the movie would damage that whole.

It did not do that at least on the DVD, which is a testament to Gibson's tact of approach: he managed not to displace a single well-ingrained traditional image and instead added his own imagery: the closeups of the flagellation and the nails, the hermaphrodite Satan, Pilate and his crew, etc. The intense serenity of Mary preserving her Son's blood added to our theological sense of her as the First Chruch and did not compete with Mary the Theotokos. The crucifixion by Mel blended in with others, like this slightly overdone

Simon Vouet, 1622

It did not penetrate my consciousness as much as the mass-produced Crucifix in my church does. I have to conclude that film, perhaps because of its tactile impact, does not really penetrate the mind as deep.

This is one image movies can't beat:

Crucifix with Scenes of the Passion
Italy, Pisa, 13th century
c. 1230-1240

For good measure

Rublev, late 14th century Russia

Apparently, you reject these Gnostic Gospels, correct? Why? How do you know that God actually is favoring the Gnostic side, the "remnant Church"? These New Agers are making this very claim, that the Catholic Church rejected the Word of God - the Gnostic Scriptures.

I know that Gnosticism is wrong because it goes directly against the teachings and writings of the eyewitnesses to Christ. Gnosticism takes a man-centered theology to a new level, and humility appears to play no part of it. Jesus never preached "knowledge is the way to salvation". It is easy for me to dismiss the Gnostics.

FK: "There was participation, but no cooperation."

I see these words as meaning the same thing.

Well, then that could explain much! :) I happen to draw a sharp distinction in defense of my idea of God's sovereignty. But if you see them as meaning the same thing, then OK.

Is Christianity a REVEALED religion, or a philosophy of man? If you claim the former, than there is no such "freedom" to interpret EVERY possible meaning found in Scripture as coming from God.

Christianity is a revealed religion, I just don't believe it is only revealed to a very few of one particular branch of Christianity.

God bases His list of the elect based on what we do. No, He bases it without any consideration of the elect's response...

Happy? either is a suitable Catholic position.

Yes, I'm happy and I'll take it. :) Sign me up with the Catholics holding the latter view.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.