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.

Kolokotronis to FK: Man's nature is not at all sinful. His created purpose is to be wholly like God by grace. The post Fall state of Man is not his true nature at all...

FK to Kolokotronis And I would say that man's nature is exactly as God ordained it to be. There was no mistake. Through Adam's sin, all humanity is born with a sinful nature totally incapable of coming to God, much less of even doing good

Kolokotronis' statement is what Apostolic Church taught from the beginning. All indications are that God desired man to be immortal.

Sin, FK, presupposes reason and free will (by necessity) or else it is not sin. You are saying that God ordained Adam's sin which is to say that He "programmed" Adam to sin.

This is sheer nonsense.

Adam was created with a possibility of being immortal. God planted a choice in the middle of the Garden of Eden, for man to choose. Man chose mortality. God did not make that choice for Adam. And wile you maintain that God ordained Adam's Fall, the real burden is Adam's obedience to God's wish for him to fall.

Again, a choice to be a choice must be free and not an obligation.

Evident or not, it is in the Bible, so it must be true, right? Now you are using man-made classification and knowledge as being outside of the realm of biblical infallibility?

I would say you are making progress...

So, what am I to get from your reply? That now we need an up-to-date study guide

It is based on the premise that the earth stands still, and the "heavens" rotate around us -- and we know that is not true any longer, don't we HD! So why does it still work?

But I will not wager that every "i" and "t" in the Scripture is the whole truth because, as you have admitted, it is dependent on "man-made criteria" of the time.

I said I would limit my examples to Leviticus only and that there are tons of similar "manmade criteria"

However, if there are factual errors (errors of math, for example) that means there are errors in that Book.

Oh, I see. It now is left to a bunch of old guys to sort out the errors from the truth. Sorry, your way out of line from what the early church fathers believed.

Jesus, being human, though, shows us that man CAN resist temptation. The point of this story is not to show "Na, na, I can resist the devil and you can't". It is to show that in our original state, man COULD have said NO to the serpent.

I'm not sure how your first sentence can work unless you believe that Jesus was born with the sinful nature. Is that what you hold? If so, then doesn't that mean that the man Adam was born in a superior state to that of the man Jesus?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "could". :) Do you allow for the possibility that Adam "would" have chosen not to sin? I do not. Otherwise, there would have been no need for Jesus, and no need for Christianity. God ordained what God ordained.

This is certainly a Calvinist innovation and corruption of God's Word. We are supposed to believe that "God is Love" who creates and willfully condemns men to eternal hell for absolutely no responsibility that man has, since they cannot choose but evil?

Well, I do believe that God passes over some, and does not give the grace they would need to be saved. But I place no duty on God to give such grace to anyone. He is the potter, and I'm just thankful that He chose to give it to some.

There is no greater example of this in scripture then the famous "God repented" clauses. God doesn't repent but it was a way to convey a message

Mayabe you need to look up the word rationalizing which you seem to use a lot and confuse it with "understanding" when it is devising self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one's behavior.

"God repented" is of course nonsense, but "it was a way to convey a message."

And what message would that be HD? That God said "Ooops!" Why not just say that God's, Who is slow to anger, got angry (although we all know that God doesn't get angry, right?) and decided to drown not just the rotten man (whom He ordained to be rotten according to your theology), but innocent animals as well -- save for those few (which Noah sacrificed every day; wonder how come he didn't run out of some species...). What's the message, HD?

And God creating the universe in six days isn't?

As I said before, God creating the universe in six days was never part and parcel of the Creed of the Church. It comes from the presumption that the author of Genesis was trying to write historical and scientific information. With the knowledge that science has given us, it seems highly unlikely that the author WAS intending to write a scientific tract. In either case, it is not necessary to believe that God created the universe in 6 days or over a billion years - our salvation depends on other issues.

Actually I do not believe the earth is 6,000 years old and do believe the earth could very easily be billions of years old. I find this completely compatible with Genesis 1 and 2. There is simply no indication of how long Adam was in the garden. Adam could have existed millions of years. It is my personal belief things evolved around the garden. That would explain how when God told Adam that in the day he eats of the fruit, he will die, Adam knew what dying was. However I should caution you I have never read this viewpoint anywhere and it could be heretical.

You certainly could be correct. Science will not be able to prove or disprove this. It certainly is feasible to say that Adam was in the Garden for many years before the temptation.

Believing in a virgin birth and God raising someone from the dead sounds like foolishness as well. I believe Paul said it was foolishness to the world. And, btw, you're the one who believes that bread and wine gets changed to flesh and blood.

Touche! However, the Church doesn't say that the accidents become something else. They continue to have the appearance of bread and wine. Thus, again, science cannot prove or disprove anything regarding the transubstantiation. On the other hand, young-earth Creationists claim that the earth was formed in 6000 years despite the visible evidence. There IS no visible evidence of the Eucharistic elements changing to something else - it is strictly based on faith. Young earth creationists deal with visible evidence and deny it all.

Oops...that's the wrong side, jokus. Come back to the light.... :O)

Yes, I know, the devil doesn't need my help. I am only disagreeing with your take on early Christianity.

And this is where we differ with our soteriology. God isn't interested in numbers. The number of Jews who were converted don't matter. Neither do the Gentiles. You look at it like it wasn't "successful". I look at it as God brought in the right people at the right time. There isn't anyone of His sheep that He lost.

I am not taking the discussion in that direction. I am merely saying that Christianity WAS an innovation - something that was VERY much different then what the Jews expected. Jesus was considered a failed Messiah, at best, by them. He hung from a tree. The were not 'saved' from slavery, as far as they could tell. Jesus disregarded the visible applications of the Law. This should give a new respect for Paul and Peter, who had to evangelize people based on this new paradigm that the Jews just did not comprehend. I am not saying anything about GOD'S point of view, of course!

Of course the Jews accepted them; at least those who accepted God by faith. They became Christians. The others have no faith and, as we know, it is God who gives us our faith.

Yes, God gives us faith. He opens our hearts to Him.

Regards

Do you allow for the possibility that Adam "would" have chosen not to sin? I do not. Otherwise, there would have been no need for Jesus, and no need for Christianity. God ordained what God ordained

If Adam had no choice but to do what he did, it is not a sin, FK. If I force you to do something you don't want to, then it is not your fault. Choice requires freedom to choose. No freedom, no choice; no choice, no sin. Choice cannot be ordained.

You got is exactly backwards: if God compelled Adam to sin by not giving him a choice, then Adam was forced to disobey and therefore he did not commit sin. In fact, his "disobedience" actually becomes obedience. Thus your theology turns everything upside down! Man is guilty of obeying God! Man gest punished for being unable to resists what God pre-programmed him to do. Man gets "redeemed" by God for having obeyed God. If Judas obeyed God, then you must believe Judas to be a righteous man who only did what God ordained him to do.

I'm not sure how your first sentence can work unless you believe that Jesus was born with the sinful nature. {JK: Jesus, being human, though, shows us that man CAN resist temptation.}

Jesus took on human nature AS GOD INTENDED. In other words, it did not LACK anything. OUR own selves were born WITHOUT something. This lack of grace has wounded us, much like a disease. This disease is not our original selves, but something that results because we lack God's orignal Grace. Adam and Jesus were not born lacking anything of human nature. Thus, Adam COULD certainly have REFUSED. We believe (if I may speak for my Orthodox brother) that Adam was equipped to resist the tempter - which Jesus DID. Not because of His supernatural self, but His human self was missing nothing...

Do you allow for the possibility that Adam "would" have chosen not to sin? I do not. Otherwise, there would have been no need for Jesus, and no need for Christianity. God ordained what God ordained.

chuckle...God did not wait with baited breath to see the results of what Adam would do. He certainly KNEW what Adam would do - AND, working within Adam's free will, made something of incredible evil - the wounding of all future mankind - into something of incredible goodness - the Incarnation of our Lord and Savior. Why would God have to force anything? He knew what Adam would do and provided accordingly for all human kind.

This denies the responsibility that MEN have for their own evil actions. The Church has always taught that men have been given the power to obey God's commands. Everyone. That some don't proves that God allows free will of men to co-exist with His sovereign will. Yes, we are very thankful that He has chosen to reach down to us.

Regards

They [the Pharisees] certainly had faith in God and His existence. They were very aware of the Scriptures. And they directed their lives around trying to please God - thus, they did good deeds. They had faith, but it was a loveless faith, it was a faith that was not internalized.

So in your view, faith is simply a belief in the existence of "a" God, even if it is the wrong one? (Clearly, the Pharisees did not believe in the correct God, as Jesus called them hypocrites.) I don't see that as faith at all. True and God-given faith must be in Christ. The Pharisees did not have this.

I believe that Protestantism only concentrates on the "either God does everything or man does everything". "by the grace of God I am what I am; and his grace towards me was not in vain, for I laboured more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." 1 Cor 15:10

I have acknowledged many times your saying that you believe that we do nothing good on our own, however, I still see that you give man individual credit. Free will demands this.

[continuing] See the interaction? See that we are a result of God's Grace? But see also how Paul notes that God's gifts were not wasted! It was not in vain! Doesn't this presuppose that man CAN ALLOW God's grace to fall in vain? Even a "saved" person?

I don't see the interaction at all, here, in terms of salvation because I don't think Paul was even remotely talking about salvation here. He was talking about his own preaching, and the grace God gave him to enable him to do so. God graces us in many different ways. Sure God may have graced me with the potential to be a great musician, but through my poor choices I might have blown that. I don't think it is the same at all with salvation. Those God chooses will be saved.

[On Matt. 23:37:] Isn't it clear that God is PINING for us? That God greatly desires us? He gives us so many gifts to come to Him, to choose Him. And yet, many still refuse. "And ye would not!" I hear exasperation in that voice. Frustration.

I don't agree that God pines for us. Why would He if He already knows the outcome? I do agree that it sounds like frustration, but I would put it in the same category as God asking Adam where he was because He didn't know. Jesus is teaching us what the non-elect look like, just as He teaches us what the elect do look like.

You are presuming that the person is falsely claiming faith, when in actuality, the person is mis-informed of his idea of what faith IS. An incorrect idea of faith will lead a person to "falsely" claim faith - which James sets about to correct. Faith comes with ethical teachings that we are bound to hold.

I have no idea what this means. :) So, a person can falsely claim faith, but still really have true faith? I still don't understand what you say faith does and does not include (i.e. love, etc.), where it comes from, and how much credit man deserves for his cooperation in his faith.

Well, can a person be saved without love? If a man's faith does not include love, what good is it? It is dead. Catholics do not separate the two. I am using these Scriptures to illustrate what happens when you say "faith alone - without works of love".

No, a person cannot be saved without love. I don't say "faith alone - without works of love", I say it is included in true faith, given by God. But you are separating the two because you hold that it is possible to have faith without love. That is separation. I think you'll say that God has something to do with faith, but as to love, you seem to put that all on man's choices. You say that love has to be a free will choice, which means uncoerced by God. You also say that God gives everyone all that he needs to be saved. That leaves the final power as to a man's salvation in his own hands. And yet, you still refuse to admit this.

Prior to his resurrection, Christ felt hunger, pain, weakness, fatigue. He shed tears, he sweated, he bled. Angels were sent to minister to him after he was weakened from fasting and being tempted in the wilderness. I think we would agree (and now I am including FK here, as well) that none of these things will be part of the next life and of our resurrected bodies.

Yes, I am fully with you here.

[To Kolo:] I guess that what I am getting at is that Christ received his human nature not by de novo creation, but from his human mother. She had the result of Adam's sin in her -- i.e. corruption and death (for she did die) -- and would it not be true that she passed on that same human nature to Christ? Is this not why he hungered and thirsted, etc...?

Based on Kolo's answer, it looks like we have three separate views going on at the same time here. :) I have said that I don't think Jesus was subject to any of the fallen nature of humanity because Paul tells us that such was passed down through the MAN. That would make Jesus exempt. I am taking your view to be that man's fallen state was passed down to Jesus through Mary, and Jesus used His free will to decide not to sin. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) One problem I have with that is that since Adam was not "born" in a fallen state, wasn't he born in a superior state to Jesus?

Kolo appears to be saying that since Mary was graced with a pre-fall nature, that Jesus was thus not subject to man's post-fall nature. One problem I have with that is that if Mary herself was born in the normal way, with the fallen state from both of her parents, then didn't God eliminate her free will by gracing her as He did? What fallen human chooses PERFECTLY throughout an entire lifetime to never sin, not even once? No one. The fix would have had to be in, and that would seem to take away free will. Just as no one in human history has ever chosen to do only evil acts, in human terms, from beginning to end, so no one else, save Jesus, has ever chosen to do only Godly acts.

To FK, I would point out that as K points out, we do not believe that human nature is intrinsically sinful, in the sense of guilty and deserving of the wrath of God by very definition -- we do believe that it is fallen, and that this fallenness results in both sin and death in our lives.

(Leaving God out of it for this point) But if you say that our fallen nature (implicitly necessarily) results in both sin and death, then how is that not intrinsic? Would it make a difference to say a guaranteed result is intrinsic?

He was tempted in all ways as we were, except without sin. If he fully took on human nature, this had to be real temptation, as experienced by Christ in his human nature.

That's interesting. I don't think I could agree to His temptation being as "real" as it is with us, though of course, the man Jesus was tempted. The difference I see is that Jesus the man had inside information that none of us have. That is, divine knowledge of eternity. Given the divine knowledge of Jesus the man, do you really think He was sweating His answers to satan in the desert? I do not, although I would say that a large majority of humans would. If you know, because I'm not sure I even know my own position on it :), what is the separation between the knowledge of Jesus the man, and Christ the God during the earthly life of Jesus?

For if he wasn't to receive his human nature from his mother, then why bother with being born -- why not just appear with a newly created glorified human body that would then go through the play-acting of pretending to suffer, thirst, hunger, cry, and need rest?

Well, that would have ruined prophecy as we know it, I suppose. The Bible would have had to have been completely rewritten. God could have done it, but the bottom line is that we cannot know why He chooses to do everything He does. I do agree that the human man Jesus did actually and really suffer, etc., but I don't think that necessarily translates to a fallen condition which He simply chose to overcome.

First, see my 3952. I am officially convinced that Christ did not take on a fallen human nature. Looking back, it is obvious that the seeds of this question in my mind came from having read, many years ago, Bp. Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Way." This book is highly problematic in many aspects, with all due respect to Bp. Kallistos, who has done more to communicate Orthodoxy to the English-speaking world than any other single person.

"Leaving God out of it for this point) But if you say that our fallen nature (implicitly necessarily) results in both sin and death, then how is that not intrinsic? Would it make a difference to say a guaranteed result is intrinsic?"

If you will look at what I wrote, the Orthodox response to this hangs on the differentiation we make between the results of the ancestral sin (death and corruption) and the Western concept of "original guilt," which indicates that man, from the moment of conception is deserving of the wrath and punishment of God. We see a difference between death/corruption and moral guilt. The former we are born with as a result of the ancestral sin, and the latter we acquire as a result of our actions.

We do not believe that the Theotokos was born without the results of ancestral sin, in the sense of the tendency to death and corruption. We do believe that she lived a morally guiltless life, and was thus a worthy vessel for the conception and birth of Christ. We do not believe that "the fix was in" for her. We believe that she had no other tools at her disposal than the ones we do.

I'm not sure what K means when he says that the Virgin had a pre-fall nature. I think he means that because of her sinlessness, she was as morally guiltless as was Eve prior to the fall. I do not think that he means that she was not subject to the results of the ancestral sin -- i.e. corruption and death. For she most certainly died, and the resurrection of her body is/was just as dependent on the Resurrection of Christ as is anyone else's resurrection.

You are right that the fact that Christ was both God and man, but one person, means that he had "inside information" to a degree that no one else does. And yet, his human nature was a real one, and experienced things in a real way. What do you think that St. Mark is talking about when, in his account of the Garden of Gethsemane that Christ "began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy?"

Blessed Theophylact has the following commentary: ""He took with Him only those three disciples who had also been witnesses of His glory on Mt. Tabor, so that having seen those glorious things they might also see these sad things and understand that the Lord was also truly man, and that, like us, He felt sorrow and distress. Since He had assumed full humanness in all aspects, of course He would feel sorrow and distress in His human nature. All we humans by nature find death odious and distasteful."

"They teach us to Til the soil to unearth the truth. All good agrarians know that!"

Very droll. :-)

We could back into all of this by attempting to analyze in detail exactly what the influences of Origen on Orthodoxy were and are. This is a very complex topic, but must always end with the fact that Orthodoxy has never considered Origen to be a saint, and he is considered to be a father of the Church only under very qualified conditions. It is most proper to say that we consider him, like Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, to be an early Christian writer/thinker.

Actually, though, I would rather very much enjoy going through a great amount of bandwidth (or even a small amount) discussing the specifics of the neo-Platonism of Orthodoxy. Not what the "non-controversial consensus" of non-Orthodox scholars about our theology is, but rather a straight-forward discussion of what we believe and how we pray and worship, and how it is or is not neo-Platonic.

In other words, do we live our spiritual lives like neo-Platonists, or do we live like Christians? Or if you will, suppose that the average educated American were to walk into one of our churches and stand through a few services, and maybe chat with parishioners at coffee-hour after Liturgy. Suppose that this person were to be given a question (choose one best answer): Did what you just experience strike you as being based in a. the philosophy of Plato, or b. the Old Testament? What do you think the answer would be?

You may chuckle at the Orthodox self-understanding as a continuation of the Hebrew religion that Christ came to fulfil. I am equally free to chuckle at the idea that an ancient Jew might walk into the local Reformed church today and recognize what was going on as worship, let alone a continuation of his religion.

We've gotten to the point where you say that "Neo-Platonism is an essential core to Orthodoxy although it obviously must be different in some important ways from the pagan form."

That's at least a start. I'd still like to know some specifics about what that essential core of Neoplatonism exactly is that I believe and that I live out in my spiritual life.

Regarding Edward Moore, I'm afraid I've never heard of the guy. I looked him up on the internet, and it appears that he got his doctorate from and teaches at some correspondence course school in Seward, Nebraska that I've never heard of that is affiliated with a rather bizarre little "Orthodox" group that I've never heard of.

Even assuming that he knows what he is talking about, I'm not quite sure of what to make of his comment that " in his zeal to correct Origen, and, as we have seen, to provide a rational, philosophical explication of Christian dogma, Maximus ended by articulating a salvation theory that is, perhaps, more Neoplatonic than authentically Christian."

So St. Maximus, in his zeal to correct a Platonist, ended up articulating a Neoplatonic theology? Hm.

The quote was from KJV. My OT Bible (LXX, Septuagint) says this:

"I am he that prepared light, and formed darkness; who make peace, and create evil; I am the Lord God, that does all these things." [Esaias 45:7]

The Greek word used is derived from Greek kakos, meaning "of bad nature" or "wicked." In the Hebrew version the word ra` is used meaning "bad" or "evil."

I know it was from the KJV. I brought it up because I thought I remembered you saying the KJV was a bad translation earlier. I wondered why you were quoting it now. Plus, why does your own Greek version use "evil" if you distinguish between the Greek and the Hebrew?

Since we are no this subject, maybe you can explain how come 2 Kings 8:26 says Ahaziah was 22 years old and 2 Chron 22:2 says he was 42 when he became king? , In my NIV, both verses say he was 22 years old. If you want to just declare that wrong, so you can declare that there is a conflict, then I can't stop you.

2 Sam 6:23 says Michal had no children and 2 Sam 21:8 says she had five!, ...

There does not appear to be universal agreement on whether these are the same people or not. My Bible says the latter is Merab, but acknowledges that there is disagreement. I would hardly call that a slam dunk.

"I think he means that because of her sinlessness, she was as morally guiltless as was Eve prior to the fall. I do not think that he means that she was not subject to the results of the ancestral sin -- i.e. corruption and death."

Exactly! The Sin of Adam brought sin into the world and distorted not only our nature but creation itself. One of the results of this is that every living thing dies, not necessarily because of personal moral guilt. Even in our True, Pre-Fall nature, we had free will and could choose to cut ourselves off from God as Adam and Eve did. The Theotokos, by virtue of her freely given response to God's grace, did not make that choice and thus attained perfect theosis (which is the purpose of our creation), but she still lived, as we do, in a fallen world and so died as we all will until sin itself no longer exists. Indeed, her theosis resulting in bodily resurrection is/was as dependent on Christ breaking the bonds of death as much as anyone else's because it is not necessarily personal guilt which held the souls of the righteous dead of the OT in hades but rather the general power of sin and death over all creation.

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.