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.

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.

The Pharisees didn't believe in the "correct" God??? Was there another God that gave Moses the ten commandments? I thought the God of the Old Testament was the same as the God of the New Testament - but more revealed through the ministry of Jesus Christ. The Pharisees believed in God, but their understanding of Him and His Law was not complete. It was corrupted on account of man-made traditions (such as Corban). They conducted religious deeds for the sake of pride, rather than humble worship of God. But they certainly believed in the "same" God. I think Jesus expected more from the Pharisees because of the knowledge that God had already given them. And their faith certainly was lacking. They trusted in themselves, rather than in God. It was a loveless faith.

True and God-given faith must be in Christ.

So Elijah's faith was worthless because it was not in Jesus Christ? Moses? David?

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.

That's the message of Scripture. We will be judged based on what WE do - in Christ. We won't be judged on making a one-time proclamation.

Those God chooses will be saved.

There's the "either/or" again. God made man in His image. We, like God, have free will. I don't see how this interferes with an all-powerful God's sovereignty. God's WILL is that we freely come to Him. When we say God "chooses" those He saves, He certain foresees our responses and grants us more graces to guide us along the way. But giving us graces does not destroy our free will. God's choice does not destroy man's free will. We don't KNOW what God's choices are! Thus, when we appear before our Lord and Savior, we will know whether God chose us all along - and we will see we freely chose Him.

I don't agree that God pines for us

WOW! That explains your concept of God... Clearly, you are missing the greatest theme of Scripture - God's love for mankind. Have you read the Song of Songs?

Why would He if He already knows the outcome?

So when you made the "offer she couldn't refuse" to your wife, you didn't pine for her - even though you "knew" she couldn't refuse? Hmm. I have no further questions, your honor...

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.

I suppose this derives from your view of God towards us. Rather than a loving God who cares for us and "waits for us by the road - seeing us from a distance" (Prodigal Son), you would have God a God who happily condemns to eternal hell-fire randomly chosen people or a God who is insecure about giving anyone any sort of credit (though He credits people with righteousness throughout Scriptures). God asked Adam where he was to draw out from Adam his mistake - to confess it and ask forgiveness. That's what people desire to hear - when they are in love...

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, then here is something simpler. Does faith include obedience to God's Will?

No, a person cannot be saved without love. I don't say "faith alone - without works of love"

OK. So far so good. Now. At what point does this "faith" become "faith with love", in other words, saving faith? You yourself admit that your initial faith was not 'saving faith', and thus, must not have had a sufficient amount of love. At what point does this faith become "sufficient" to save? Is it at the point of declaration? But if so, how can it have love? It appears to me that love is something acquired through experience, through action, through using the gifts God has given us - not something that is declared.

But you are separating the two because you hold that it is possible to have faith without love.

James and Paul do...So does Jesus. I believe John does, as well. It seems there are ample Scripture verses that discuss the difference between faith alone and faith with love.

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

Without God, we can do neither. That would be like saying to your kid - "Build me a Lego building" and then not give him any Legos. What good is that request? Does God do the same with us? Does He ask us to obey His commandments, and then not give us the ability to do it? From what I hear, that is exactly your idea of God - to the "un-elect"...

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall [your] heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" Luke 11:13

From what I understand on your concept of God, He will refuse this to anyone not on His "list". God, from what I can tell, will NOT give gifts to certain people, unlike the evil man who does?????

This is why your view of God is very strange and foreign to me. It doesn't match with Scriptures.

Regards

Jesus did a number of things that were "tradition". ... Jesus also follows many customary rules - ... The point is that NOWHERE does Scripture abrogate oral tradition, and neither does Jesus tell us to refuse ALL oral traditions. He commands His disciples to follow them!

I do not dispute that He followed practices that were handed down via tradition. That is very different to me than quoting them as authority for theological purposes, which I don't know that He did. He certainly did quote from scripture in making theological points. Jesus does not tell us to throw away ALL oral traditions, but neither did He tell us to follow ALL of them. I would assume that His position was that if something led a man toward God, then it was good, and vice versa.

It is biblical. How else do you explain John 20:23? ... Do men baptize themselves? What is the difference between going to another "elder" to receive baptism or relief from post-baptismal sins through confession?

Again, I have no problem with the concept of confession. We are told to "confess our sins, to each other". No problem. One difference between Baptism and confession here is that basically any believer "can" administer a valid Baptism. However, confession has had attached to it a component of salvation, and that component can only be dealt with through Catholic priests. That cuts off hundreds of millions of Christians, (even though you say salvation is still possible for us). Thus, we disagree on the interpretation of the passage in John.

FK: "As we have discussed, I do have problems with it in other respects."

Traditions that are ANTI-BIBLICAL, or ones you just don't approve of?

Well, for example, I'm not sure what the official classification of free will is in Catholicism, whether it is considered scriptural or Tradition. But I do consider that to be anti-Biblical because it diminishes God, heightens man, and goes directly against what the Bible actually says.

But Catholics believe that God INFUSES His grace into us, He doesn't cover us due to our "total inability to come to God EVEN WITH God". Thus, Jesus' words "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven" make sense. When Jesus moves our will to do good, WE are doing something.

OK, let's see if I get this. You are saying that once God graces us, He puts literal righteousness inside us so that we are literally righteous. With these tools of righteousness then, we can make our own free will decisions to do good in God's eyes. We use the tools, but the decision is ours. That is contrasted with my belief that even with the Spirit, it is still not us doing the good, it is God doing the good through us.

My argument is that Romans 3 does not teach that men are ALL evil. Only wicked men do not reach to God. Thus, the word "all" is not a universal "all", which INCLUDES regenerated men! I hope my point is slipping in.

Now I think I understand better why you are adamant about Rom. 3:23. It's because of the further implications. It is more than just protecting Mary.

But our nature did not become totally evil. Men do not SEEK the evil. Men still desire good, not evil.

But isn't the definition of "good", God? Lost people do not seek God by their nature, on their own. That only leaves evil for men to seek, on their own. I thought you agreed to this basic idea.

IF Christ was a totally different nature than man's, than we weren't reconciled to the Father and He is not the Mediator between us and Him.

I don't think His nature was TOTALLY different than ours. He hungered and thirsted, etc. I just don't think He was subject to the fallen nature of Adam. He was sinless because there was no sin in Him. What would have happened if Jesus was able to sin, and then chose to? His fully human self would be sinning against His fully divine self. I think that's impossible.

Perhaps I didn't explain it correctly. I'm not a Greek scholar nor do I play one on TV. However below is an excerpt from what I was attempting to explain.

2. THE INTERPRETER'S RELATION TO GRAMMAR. Both the grammarian as such and the interpreter deal with grammar, but from very different points of view. The distinction between these points of view should be clearly recognized by the interpreter. It may be conveniently represented by the terms historical grammar and exegetical grammar. Historical grammar deals with the development of both form and function through the various periods of the history of the language, and does this in purely objective fashion. Exegetical grammar, on the other hand, takes the forms as it finds them, and defines the functions which at a given period each form discharged, and does this from the point of view of the interpreter, for the purpose of enabling him to reproduce the thought conveyed by the form. To investigate the process, by which the several forms were built up, to determine the earliest function of each such form, to show how out of this earliest function others were developed, and how forms of different origin, and presumably at first of different function, became associated, discharging the same function and eventually coming to bear the same name -- all this belongs to historical grammar. To reproduce in the mind of the interpreter, and to express as nearly as may be in his own tongue, the exact thought which a given form was in the period in question capable of expressing -- this is the task of exegetical grammar. Historical grammar views its problem wholly from the point of view of the language under investigation, without reference to the language of the grammarian. Exegetical grammar is necessarily concerned both with the language under investigation and with that in which the interpreter thinks and speaks, since its problem is to aid in reproducing in the latter tongue thought expressed in the former.

The results of historical grammar are of the greatest interest and value to exegetical grammar. Our interpretation of the phenomena of language in its later periods can hardly fail to be affected by a knowledge of the earlier history. Strictly speaking, however, it is with the results only of the processes of historical grammar that the interpreter is concerned. If the paradigm has been rightly constructed, so that forms of diverse origin perhaps, but completely assimilated in function, bear a common name, exegetical grammar is concerned only to know what are the functions which each group of forms bearing a common name is capable of discharging. Thus, the diversity of origin of the two Aorists, e;lusa and e;lipon, does not immediately concern the interpreter, if it is an assured result of historical grammar that these two forms are completely assimilated in function. Nor does it concern him that the ai at the end of the Infinitives, dei/xai and ive,nai, is the mark of the Dative case, and that the earliest use of such infinitives was as a verbal noun in the Dative case, except as this fact of historical grammar aids him in the interpretation of the phenomena of that period of the language with which he is dealing. The one question of exegetical grammar to which all other questions are subsidiary is, What function did this form, or group of forms, discharge at the period with which we are dealing? What, e.g., in the New Testament, are the functions of the Present Indicative? What are the uses of the Aorist Subjunctive?

For practical convenience forms are grouped together, and the significance of each of the distinctions made by inflection discussed by itself. The present work confines itself to the discussion of mood and tense, and discusses these as far as possible separately. Its question therefore is, What in the New Testament are the functions of each tense and of each mood? These various functions must be defined first of all from the point of view of the Greek language itself. Since, however, the interpreter whom in the present instance it is sought to serve thinks in English, and seeks to express in English the thought of the Greek, reference must be had also to the functions of the English forms as related to those of the Greek forms. Since, moreover, distinctions of function in the two languages do not always correspond, that is, since what in Greek is one function of a given form may be in English subdivided into several functions performed by several forms, it becomes necessary not only to enumerate and define the functions of a given form purely from the point of view of Greek, but to subdivide the one Greek function into those several functions which in English are recognized and marked by the employment of different forms. An enumeration of the uses of a given Greek tense made for the use of an English interpreter may therefore properly include certain titles which would not occur in a list made for one to whom Greek was the language of ordinary speech and thought. The Aorist for the English Perfect, and the Aorist for the English Pluperfect (46, 48) furnish a pertinent illustration. The interests of the English interpreter require that they be clearly recognized. Fidelity to Greek usage requires that they be recognized as, strictly speaking, true Historical Aorists.

MOODS AND TENSES OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK by ERNEST DE WITT BURTON

I do not dispute that He followed practices that were handed down via tradition. That is very different to me than quoting them as authority for theological purposes, which I don't know that He did.

Really? So when Jesus ordered His disciples to obey those who "sat in the chair of Moses, but don't do as they do", THAT had no theological purpose??? And Jesus didn't NEED to quote Scripture. His authority was manifest specifically by NOT quoting Scripture! "You have HEARD it said... but I tell you...". Seems Jesus is NOT relying on words in a book to teach the Word of God.

Jesus does not tell us to throw away ALL oral traditions

But Protestants tell us that we should...

...neither did He tell us to follow ALL of them"

Which ones are we NOT to follow? The ones that lead us away from God - such as Corban. It seems pretty easy to ascertain that the concept of Corban was a deliberate means of circumventing the Fourth Commandment. Can you point to some Catholic "traditions of men" that are dogmatic and move us away from God? Perhaps I could then understand your point of view better.

Thus, we disagree on the interpretation of the passage in John.

Then what is the "correct" interpretation? That Jesus actually breathed upon ALL of His followers, present and future, giving them the power to forgive sins? What is your historical basis for this interpretation?

But I do consider that to be anti-Biblical because it diminishes God, heightens man, and goes directly against what the Bible actually says.

I disagree that free will diminishes ANYTHING from God. Having NO free will goes directly against what the Bible AND Church history and Tradition has taught constantly. Thus, you are left to totally rely on your own self for interpretating Scripture. Does Scripture tell us we should interpret it by ourselves or within the community of believers? You have not shown me any convincing evidence (nor has anyone else here) that "man has free will" is antithetical to the Scriptures. You are reading Scripture with that presumption already present - that man has no free will. Thus, when you read my tagline, you totally disregard it and wave it off as nothing of consequence. The fact remains that God, through Moses, is telling man to CHOOSE. Sorry, free will is not anti-Biblical. You just disagree with it. Scripture clearly notes it.

We use the tools, but the decision is ours.

Even the decision making has God intricately interwoven into the formula. Phil 2:12-13 makes this clear - that God places within me the will and desire to do the good. Does He make it inevitable? No. Read Romans 7 and PAUL'S struggle with the flesh. I see that God enables us to love and do His will, but we DO have the ability to refuse. That much is perfectly clear. IF we have the ability to refuse, we have the ability to choose. Otherwise, we would have no responsibility under judgment.

That is contrasted with my belief that even with the Spirit, it is still not us doing the good, it is God doing the good through us.

That's because you have the idea in your head that man is evil and will always remain that way. see below

Now I think I understand better why you are adamant about Rom. 3:23. It's because of the further implications. It is more than just protecting Mary.

I do see it as one of the main reasons of why Protestants are in error about the anthropology of man - that ALL men are evil by nature. This thinking leads people to falsely believe that NOTHING is attributed to them - that men (with the impetus of God) CANNOT be righteous - despite Jesus specifically telling us that OUR righteousness must exceed the Pharisees. Thus, Scripture is twisted in so many places...Man is automatically saved by making a simple declaration, Man is saved without doing works of love, man is saved by imputed grace, love adds nothing to salvation, and man is NOT judged to heaven/hell based on what they did in life. This conversation has nothing to do with Mary.

These verses are instrumental in understanding the heart of error within Protestant salvation theology. By saying that EVEN A REGENERATED MAN is evil, then you are forced to invent "imputed righteousness" that covers all you do - removing you from the equation of judgment. Frankly, I find the whole thing a tool of the devil that keeps men and women of good will from coming closer to Christ. By the devil's machinations, such people are lulled into a false sense of security - they become lukewarm and presumptuous - and are ripe for a fall. Refer to John's Revelations if you forgot how Jesus deals with such "Christians". Perhaps this is why I am so "adamant" about you seeing this.

But isn't the definition of "good", God? Lost people do not seek God by their nature, on their own. That only leaves evil for men to seek, on their own. I thought you agreed to this basic idea.

In the end, yes. Man seeks goodness, truth, and beauty. It is ultimately found in God. But God created nature to point man TO this ultimate end. That is why Paul says even the pagans have no excuse in Romans 1. ALL men desire "goodness", defined as happiness. Can anyone contradict that? Because of original sin, our DEFINITION of this goodness, this means of obtaining happiness, is clouded. We look to selfish selves in trying to find this happiness. If we'd turn to God - often times by serving others (e.g. parable of goats and sheep), we WOULD come to true happiness. But this experiental knowledge does not come WITHOUT God. Men seek happiness - but inevitably seek it through transcient things - things that will falter or fade away. Thus, men do not usually seek evil - but are confused on what IS goodness. And finally, "lost" people is another strange-sounding term to me and my Orthodox brothers, I believe. NO ONE is lost until that day of judgment. Salvation is viewed from our point of view. NO ONE knows God's point of view or can know it. So it is pointless to theorize and claim "he is lost" or "that person is lost, so he must seek only the evil". This leads me to believe that you think God doesn't really love man.

I don't think His nature was TOTALLY different than ours. He hungered and thirsted, etc. I just don't think He was subject to the fallen nature of Adam. He was sinless because there was no sin in Him.

Nor was Adam. He, too, was born without sin. HOW did God create Adam? In sin? Was Adam's nature sinful and evil? Was he BOUND to sin? Again, this is at the heart of our disagreement. You seem to believe that God made Adam to sin - that his humanity could NOT resist tempatation. The problem with that is then Jesus did NOT take on our humanity. I would consider this very much akin to the Docetist heresy, where Jesus only APPEARED to be human. He was God pretending to be a man. Because if Jesus was a man - so the logic goes - then he WOULD have sinned, as well. You are saying that Jesus had a different composition or different nature than human. That He only APPEARED human. Fortunately, Protestantism appears to be the same old heresy that was refuted by John in the bible. Jesus REALLY DID BECOME MAN! FULLY. St. John warns Christians to beware of the "anti-Christs" who claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh. This means that He took on our nature. The nature that man initially created us in. That is why Jesus is called the Second Adam. The whole point of the devil's tempation of Christ is that man COULD HAVE REFUSED satan. Thus, man is NOT evil.

Regards

So, there is no doubt that the Bible, as we know it, contains less than complimentary information which, nonetheless, does not affect the spiritual inerrancy of its message.

I would still dispute this, although I have to admit that different translations can lead to apparent contradictions. Even though the original manuscripts of everything are unknowable in total, my faith is still that they were perfectly consistent in their original drafts. I would hold that if we can't believe that the Bible is factually accurate, then why should we believe that it is spiritually accurate?

[from the statement of Catholic Bishops] “We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision."

I suppose this pretty much throws the whole concept of divine inspiration out the window, doesn't it? If the writers were free to deviate from facts, then why were they not also free to deviate in spiritual truth?

But, to answer your question more broadly, the Fathers always maintained that the Bible is not within everyone's grasp. This is not an act of arrogance or pride, but of their deep spiritual understanding that Scripture is not for everyone.

This is very revealing, and I would strongly disagree with this idea. That is my definition of an unrevealed faith. That also requires that a layman can only receive the truth from other fallible men, NOT from God. I believe that scripture is for all those whom God loves, not only their human masters.

Finally, I will state that it makes no difference whether Christ walked the earth in Israel or America, whether He had long hair or short hair, whether He was a carpenter or a shoemaker, whether Bararaba existed or not, whether He had 12 or 24 disciples (as it turns out there were more than 12 anyway), but it is what He says in the Scripture that matters.

So only direct quotes from God in the Bible are accurate? Everything else is "who cares"? That wipes out the vast majority of the Bible as unreliable, does it not? You say that the Bible is not flawed. Indeed that surprises me very much. That means you believe that factual error is not a flaw. Therefore, God actively uses false stories, LIES, to give your leaders spiritual truth. The only alternative is that God was not the final editor of the Bible, and it just turned out the way it did through men's decisions. I admit I have never heard of this view before.

I can't believe that I'm weighing in on something as silly as how many children Michal had, but I guess I just can't help myself.

As many times as I have read the books of Samuel, I can't say I had ever noticed this discrepancy.

So, I pulled out my books this evening and did some research.

The first thing that is crystal clear to me is that the Hebrew version is unquestionably confused. Why? Because the husband listed in II Sam 21:8 for Michal is the same man given in I Sam 18:19 as being the husband of the other daughter of Saul, Merab -- Adriel the Meholathite.

There are some very convoluted explanations that could theoretically account the discrepancies in the Hebrew account, but I won't bother going through the ones that spring to my mind. They really would be grasping at straws.

So, the next question is, what does the LXX say? At superficial glance, it would appear that the LXX has the same discrepancy, if one looks at the text used in Brenton's translation, the version most readily available on-line. The problem with Brenton, though, is that it relies almost exclusively on Codex Vaticanus, with a little input from the other major uncials. This is in line with 19th c. liberal Protestant textual scholarship of the Greek Old and New Testaments alike, about which I have written very critically in other posts.

But when you examine the critical apparatus of the LXX manuscripts available, a very different picture appears. Codex Vaticanus does indeed say in II Sam 21:8 that Michal bore 5 children, but it (and perhaps a single miniscule -- the apparatus is ambiguous on this point) is the *only* LXX manuscript that says this.

Origen's rescension also reputedly says the same, but this can be discounted because Origen's general approach was to assume that the Hebrew text available to him in his day was authoritative, and that where the LXX of his day differed from it, that the LXX was corrupt. (Origen was, it seems, motivated in no small part because he thought it would strengthen Christianity's polemics with 3rd c. Judaism, which too often boiled down to whether one followed the LXX or the Hebrew texts of the rabbinical tradition of the day. Origen also apparently thought the traditional LXX readings should be used in Christian worship, but that his "corrected" rescension should be used in disputation with the rabbis.)

I would also point out that it is curious that Codex Vaticanus spells Michal differently in II Sam 21:8 (Michal) than it does in I Sam 18 or II Sam 6 (Melchol.) Origen spells it "Melchol," incidentally.

Now, the real story of the LXX is with the miniscules. The vast majority of the miniscules say in II Sam 21:8 that it was Merab, the other daughter of Saul, who had 5 children, not Michal.

This is important because it is in the miniscules that the Orthodox textual tradition of the LXX (that of the Lucianic Byzantine rescension) is carried. The Orthodox Church never accepted Origen's idea that where the Hebrew and LXX texts differed, that the Hebrew carried the correct reading and that the Greek was wrong. The old Roman Latin veresions followed the LXX, and only with Jerome did the Roman church take a shift to following the Hebrew text. So the Douay Rheims has the same contradiction that the KJV does on this point, since both follow a post-Christian Hebrew textual tradition (although the KJV follows a later Massoretic textual tradition.)

Bottom line: the Byzantine textual tradition is one that tells a story that is internally consistent, and more to the point, makes sense at every level without resorting to gymnastics:

Saul marries Merab off to Adriel the Meholathite to snub David. David and Michal fall in love, and Saul lets him marry her only after sending David to a seemingly sure death against the Philistines, only to have David succeed, allowing David to marry her. (I Sam 18) David goes into exile not long afterwards when Saul turns on him in jealousy. Saul apparently gives Michal to another man, out of spite, (Phaltiel), but when David is in the ascendency after the death of Saul, he demands to have his wife Michal back, and Saul's son gives her back to him, over the wailing laments of Phaltiel (she was apparently worth fighting and crying over.) (II Sam 3)

Michal later scolds David for his impropriety in dancing before the Lord in the sight of the daughters of Israel, and David basically says "I'll dance before the Lord when I want to dance before the Lord." It is here that it says that Michal then bore no children until the day of her death. (II Sam 6) The traditional explanation is that she was being punished with childlessness for scolding her husband -- never mind the fact that there is no mention of her and David or of her and Phaltiel having had any children up until that point, either.

Mrs. Agrarian's explanation, on the other hand, is that Michal may have had other children, but from that point on, she said to David, "fine, you want to go around dancing and exposing yourself to other women, go ahead -- but you ain't gettin' nothin' at home no more." And so she had no more children.

I don't contradict Mrs. Agrarian.

Finally, in II Sam 21:8, a recounting goes on of the Gibeonites, who hated Saul and wanted revenge on him. They won't accept money from David. They want blood, and specifically the blood of 7 of Saul's descendents. So David gives them Saul's two remaining sons, and the five sons of Saul's other daughter, Merab, and the Gibeonites kill them. This would only make sense, since it is unlikely that David would offer up the sons of his own wife, even if she had any (which according to II Sam 6, she didn't.)

In short, the supposedly "redacted and doctored versions of the Bible in which these inconsistencies have been removed by men" are none other than the LXX textual tradition of the Orthodox Church, witnessed to by a myriad of manuscripts throughout the world. The supposedly "undoctored" version of the LXX is witnessed to by a single manuscript, a manuscript which is preferred by modern scholars because it tends to cast doubt on key Orhtodox (and orthodox) texts in the NT. According to the LXX tradition, the reading in II Sam 21:8 is indeed that Merab had five children.

I do find it interesting that in this case, some Protestants have decided to follow the Byzantine LXX textual tradition, since they otherwise hold that the medieval Hebrew manuscripts are what are authoritative. Apparently the Hebrew is more authoritative than the LXX only when it doesn't contradict itself.

And again, my little excursion into textual scholarship should point out the superficiality of many appeals to "what the Greek says."

Now that I've wasted another perfectly good evening, I will wish you all a good night. :-)

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.