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

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

[HarleyD]

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erasmus On the Freedom of the Will

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luther's Arguments Against Erasmus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Battle of the Biblical Texts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Main Issues and Implications of Each View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of This Controversy Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Forest Keeper]

Among Hebrews, everyone believed in the God [of?]Abraham (that is when the God's chosen people did not worship pagan gods on numerous occasions in their history). The Jews of the OT believed in the same God we believe, I would say.

Of righteous Jews there can be no doubt. The question I still struggle with on how to answer is what about the Jews of today? (I am talking about practicing Jews of the Jewish faith.) My inclination is to say "No", He cannot be the same God because of the denial of Christ. However, I've heard leaders whom I otherwise think are OK say that He is the same God. I'd welcome any opinions on how to answer this.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

...quoted somebody or many people...

Well, we can hope they're people...

Socialist Gov't in Spain to Grant Great Apes "Human Rights"

[kosta50]

All Old Testament believers (e.g. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc.) who died before Christ were saved in Christ by faith...

If they were the "elect" from all eternity, why were they (con)damned and sent to hell to begin with?

[kosta50]

I replied initially to the consensus patrum which I assumed equaled Holy Tradition and Holy Tradition is derived of divine revelation in the same manner as Scripture

The Bible is part of the Holy Tradition. Within that Holy Tradition is the Divine Liturgy, the Gospels, the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Ecumenical Councils, the icons. It is one "body" and none of its components, mentioned above, contradict each other.

Agrarian not so long ago mentioned that one can learn the entire Bible (both Testaments) better through Divine Liturgy than just by reading the Holy Book. That much is obvious to anyone who follows liturgical life of the Church.

These were not human inventions. Everything in the Church can be traced to revealed truth. There are no "decorations" in the Church. That being said, Thomas Aquinas's brilliant work Summa theologica, or the collection of books known as Philokalia are not part of the canon because they were never inspired knowledge, nor did anyone claim them to be. They simply reflect the revealed truth known to the Church.

The faith was revealed once and forever. We cannot add to it, and we cannot take away from it. We do not "discover" more about God other than what God has revealed and know as much as He wanted us to know. Everything else is a way of explaining what was revealed in terms that can be understood by various people.

That which was revealed to the Apostles and is now contained in the Church is immutable, for what was true 2,000 years ago is true today.

The Church was built around that Holy Tradition. The New Testament is not a separate product of that truth, but a written testament of what was given to the Apostles by word of mouth. The Divine Liturgy is not something someone designed because he was "talented" but it contains the same truth given to the Apostles by word of mouth.

The Ecumenical Councils did not add or invent new meanings and new revelations, but simply stated what the Church believed from the beginning. If there were no heresies, the Church would have never had a need to define our terms of faith.

If there were no Gnostic forgeries of various "gospels" the Church would have never found it necessary to compile the New Testament.

Concensus patrium is a necessity because no individual father is without fault, no human being can claim inerrancy unless he or she is expressing the revealed truth of the Holy Tradition, not as a private opinion (theologounema), but as an established truth within the Holy Tradition. The issue of papal infallibility is one of the few topics that divide the (Roman) Catholics from the Orthodox (Catholics). I am sure we can reconcile that, but it will take an Ecumenical Council to do so.

[jo kus]

We do good works because we have been created in Christ by grace through faith. Grace and faith are gifts from God, not the result of good works, lest anyone should boast. You must be able to do better than that in arguing for a works based grace

Love, just like faith, comes from God as a gift. It is false to say that faith generates love. Love, just as faith, is a theological virtue, a gift of the Life of God Himself within us.

Paul and James tells us that faith without love is dead or useless. Thus, faith alone CANNOT be salvific.

Regards

[kosta50]

Well, we can hope they're people...[link] Socialist Gov't in Spain to Grant Great Apes "Human Rights"

I have included the link of the source quoted at the very bottom of post #5210. (hint: you need to read the whole post before making comments)

BTW, I think the Spanish government should be applauded.

[jo kus]

Excellent reply regarding the meaning of Sacred Tradition. I particularly enjoyed:

"If there were no Gnostic forgeries of various "gospels" the Church would have never found it necessary to compile the New Testament."

and

"The Church was built around that Holy Tradition. The New Testament is not a separate product of that truth, but a written testament of what was given to the Apostles by word of mouth. The Divine Liturgy is not something someone designed because he was "talented" but it contains the same truth given to the Apostles by word of mouth."

You should save this post for later use, when the subject is addressed at post #6000 or so.

Brother in Christ

[kosta50]

Paul and James tells us that faith without love is dead or useless. Thus, faith alone CANNOT be salvific

How true! Mercy and compassion and humility are "works" of faith. Christanity void humility, mercy, love and faith is a bad imitation.

Those who are "saved" in the Protestant sense, should be Christ-like in every way. Somehow I fail to see that. At least we in the Catholic and Orthodox community feel that we must struggle to become Christ-like as much as possible and that salvation is not something handed to us on a silver platter.

[jo kus]

I said : Paul and James tells us that faith without love is dead or useless. Thus, faith alone CANNOT be salvific.

Sorry, Blue, I should qualify that my definition of "salvation" is probably different then yours. I am talking about salvation to heaven, while you are likely speaking about the moment of an individual's regeneration in Christ. If I am correct in this assumption, then if you said "faith alone justifies", then I'd think we'd be much closer - since that initial justification is a moment brought about by faith freely given and freely accepted by man and is not merited.

Regards

[kosta50]

You should save this post for later use, when the subject is addressed at post #6000 or so

LOL!!!

[Forest Keeper]

The wages of sin is DEATH - ETERNAL... A person does not have "faith" who does not convert His ways to Christ. Faith is not a one-time declaration, as we have discussed before - and I thought you agreed.

I do agree.

"Many will say, 'Lord, Lord'", and Jesus will say 'I never knew you'". Chilling words to the self-elected...

Yes, they certainly would be, and I am glad I don't know anyone like that. The reason you call us "self-elected" is that your leaders have interpreted scripture to deny certain of God's promises. That is understandable, given that the Church supersedes the Bible.

If God allows us to sin "a little", why would He prevent us from sinning a lot, if that is what WE wanted?

Because in this world we don't always get what we want. :) Concerning the elect, I believe God thinks it is more important that they are saved than that they get everything they want during this extremely brief presence on earth.

Again, I see God as One who KNOWS who rejects Him before He creates man. But God is a just God and has given even this man an opportunity.

Why bother if God's foreknowledge is not rewritable? What chance does such a man have if God already knows it's over? You say God gives this man an opportunity, but what is it? This is contradictory.

You are missing the point. If God's clouds blocked the light, ALL men would be affected...

Actually, I'm still quite enamored with myself for that little quip. :) How do clouds work? If there is a thunderstorm, then there is no light. But, most of the time there are some clouds and some light, right? This is the analogy I was suggesting. God directs sunlight over those whom He will, and He puts clouds over others whom He will.

WHY would God have to "fight" against this force, this [free] will, to execute His plan?

Because of original sin. I know that we disagree about the "nature" of our born nature, but in either view, it still doesn't point toward God, does it? From God's POV, man's free will is His enemy. My point is that man's free will is in opposition to God's will. Our sin nature always opposes God.

Rom. 7:14-20 : 14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

This describes to me a struggle between man's nature (his free will to rebel), and God's will.

You are not giving God enough credit for being able to maintain control over His creation "despite" man's free will. Even in the face of poorly executed free will of men, God's plan will be accomplished, correct?

Well, under my view God is in full control, He gets all the credit, and His plan will be accomplished in full. I am trying to show you that you do not believe any of these things. :) For example, God is not in full control if He REACTS to the decisions of others rather than makes the decisions Himself. God does not get all the credit if man makes the final salvation decision. And, God's plan is not accomplished if He desires all men to be saved.

You still haven't explained - again - how God does NOT see who will reject Him AND have foreknowledge at the same time...Either He does or He doesn't.

I think I was the one who split this discussion into two parts so there may be some crossover of issues (meaning I didn't split it very well, sorry). :) But in any event, I have always thought that God sees clearly who will reject Him, and that He has full foreknowledge. I honestly do not know what I said to make you think otherwise. (You don't have to do a big search, paraphrasing should do it.)

And regardless of what you might believe, an individual does not know his final destiny until He is standing face to face with God.

Well, that view requires a very specific paradigm of interpretation that nullifies the so-called "assurance verses". Tradition says that there is no assurance, therefore, these verse are interpreted out of meaningful existence. Since I believe that the Bible is the first level of visible truth, I must take those verses as being true.

God desires ALL men to be saved - unless they refuse to be saved. That is the simplest way to put the Scriptures' view on this issue.

Now wait a minute. :) This isn't so simple. :) You say that God's decisions and men's decisions for Him all happen simultaneously, as far as God is concerned, right? So, with no time elapsing, God wants all men to be saved, UNLESS they refuse, WHICH He already knows in the simultaneous act. Logically, then, God actually spends NO TIME wanting all men to be saved, because He already knows of some who will reject. Therefore, as God ACTS, inside of time, He really doesn't want all men to be saved.

Do you or do you not believe that man can perform a morally good deed? You said you did before, but now you say he can't. Which is it? Man CAN obey the law, but not consistently enough to earn the reward of heaven.

Yes to the last sentence. I think we cleared this up on the other line by agreeing that man can do nothing good in God's eyes without faith. And, that a man without faith can do acts which are moral on their face, but still are not pleasing to God.

And the OT Law was NOT given to man just to show him how worthless he was! That is sadistic thinking on whoever told you that.

LOL! Well, I never thought of Paul as a sadist, but then again, we're all sinners: :)

Rom. 3:19-20 : 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

---------------

Heaven would be worse than hell for those who didn't want to be there in God's presence.

Yes, that might be true if there were any people like that in heaven. There are not. I think there is a big misunderstanding when your side uses words like "force" or "coerce" to describe how we think God saves His elect. The elect never, ever, experience being forced. From their POV, it is always a willing coming to Christ. They are unaware that it was "actually" God who made it ALL happen. Therefore, no one is dragged kicking and screaming into heaven. :) The concept of "force" is simply to describe who alone accomplished the salvation. It is never "forced" against someone's will, it is that God changes the will to want to come to Christ.

EVERYONE would be in heaven, if they didn't reject God's plea to ALL men.

If God wants everyone in heaven, then how strong is God's plea? God tells us openly that the road is narrow, and that most will be lost. God's plea could be of any strength He wished, correct? Why is it so apparently weak?

God chooses ALL men to be elect - unless they reject Him. Thus, you have free will to reject God, which would be your fault, or you can NOT reject Him, which would be God's free will to let you in heaven. You are not saved by your positive response, but you are condemned by your negative response.

Wow. This is new. If I am not saved by a positive response, then what is the difference between NOT rejecting Him (neutral response) and accepting Him (positive response)?

We do not earn heaven, it is an inheritance - potentially for all men. But individual men can lose salvation by "earning it" through continued sin.

So from birth salvation is ours to lose??? Joe, this is completely brand new. For an inheritance to work out, all a legatee need do is sit there and wait. In certain cases, he could sin and forfeit his legacy by going to jail or something, I suppose, but there is normally no act that is required of him. This goes against everything I know of Catholicism. Where is this coming from?

[FK on the necessity of the crucifixion for the salvation of man:] If the Father had options short of death, but chose death anyway, then it was unnecessary. It was a preference.

Sadly, that's because you do not appreciate the Passion and Death of our Lord and Savior - realizing that it was an act of Love that led Him to give up His life for the rest of the world. God was not forced into sending His Son to death. He choose this manner to show man His love for ALL of us.

What??? I don't appreciate the Passion and the crucifixion because of what? In your view, the Father could have snapped His fingers to effect the atonement of all of men's sins, but instead, He decided that Christ would go through all that because He loved us so much??? Where is the love in an unnecessary death?

[continuing:] Love overcomes obstacles. The greater the love, the greater the obstacle that can be overcome. I would say that death by crucifixion would be a tremendous obstacle of obedience for the Son - who overcame it to show His love for you and me and the world.

The reason for the crucifixion was so that Christ could overcome the large obstacle of not wanting to die on the cross? You've lost me completely. Who are you, and what have you done with Jo Kus?!

God is not "forced", it is His nature to exist, to be.

That is why I used quotation marks, to relay an idea not necessarily associated with the normal use of the word. The real Jo Kus would have known that.

I don't see God's Passion as necessary or forced, since that takes away His free will.

And on the other line you were so quick to tell me that God has obligations to us since He decided that He desires all men to be saved. When is it that God's free will applies?

Certainly, God could have shown His great love for us through other means, correct?

You have already heard me give an explanation as to why I don't think so, in posts 5085 and 5126.

Now you are starting to sound like God owed us His death!

The real Jo Kus would know better than anyone that this is something I would never think.

I don't know, Joe. You sure aren't sounding like yourself in this post.

[kosta50]

Sorry, Blue, I should qualify that my definition of "salvation" is probably different then yours. I am talking about salvation to heaven, while you are likely speaking about the moment of an individual's regeneration in Christ. If I am correct in this assumption, then if you said "faith alone justifies", then I'd think we'd be much closer - since that initial justification is a moment brought about by faith freely given and freely accepted by man and is not merited

Good point Jo. Under those terms we do agree with them.

[kosta50]

Of righteous Jews there can be no doubt. The question I still struggle with on how to answer is what about the Jews of today?

You have still not answered my question why were the righteous OT Jews, the "elect" ones predestined from eternity to be saved, condemned and sent to hell (and Elijah wasn't!)

[kosta50]

Yes, the message is true, but the fact that you discount the truth of the event proves that you, or your leaders, put the interpretation of man ahead of the text...

My "leaders" don't, FK. I am a "black sheep." I am not a spokesman for the Church, for sure. I simply confess publicly my doubts. I do not claim that I am right. At least I don't say that the Holy Spirit "guides" me. I would never use His Holy Name to dignify my babble.

There is absolutely nothing in that story that suggests it is an allegory. Nothing

No there isn't. But that story tells me that God "grieved" and "repented" and was "sorry" because the people He created to be good became spoiled and rotten as if He had no control or foreknowledge of it, or, worse, as if He didn't plan it that way.

If I believe the story to be true, then I must believe that God was surprised and disappointed, and felt stabbed in the back. Then I must believe that He didn't know. That He didn't see it coming. And that I don't believe!

It is much easier for me to see that the story was meant for the Jews to realize that their disobedience will bring natural disasters as a punishment from God than to believe that God was grieved, repentant, surprised, and blind-sided -- or, worse, that He intentionally created man so He could drown the whole wicked lot along with innocent animals.

[Forest Keeper]

We have not seen a plain meaning contradicting the Tradition, not on this thread or anywhere.

Well of course not. That's because all plain meanings of scripture are first filtered through the Church for interpretation as to what the plain meaning is. After that, it is natural that all these plain meanings will agree completely with Tradition.

For example, the plain meaning of "your brothers are outside" as perceived by the modern usage is biological brothers. But the plain meaning of the same phrase 2,000 years ago was kinsfolk.

That's a good example. You DECLARE that the plain meaning was kinsfolk, but there is no way you can prove that definitively. The Church says that is what it means, so you declare it as fact. I remember when we were talking about this a long time ago. I asked someone (or several) that if your interpretation was correct, then how did people refer to their actual blood siblings. I really can't remember a clear answer. I still find it not credible that a named "mother" means blood mother, but in the same sentence a named "brother" means friend.

But you never pointed out a case where a Church father would say something like "OK, Matthew says they were Jesus's biological brothers, but I declare Matthew wrong and establish the Tradition that they were not".

I really have no idea how or why the Church Fathers wrote what they wrote. All I know is that they were fallible, they made mistakes, they were subject to all of the influences of power and politics just like anyone else, and I have no Biblical reason to trust them over and above the Bible.

In all cases that Church father simply read the same text you are reading and the meaning was plain to him, because he had the cultural proximity to the evangelist and had the unwritten knowledge.

In that case God failed to author a book that would stand the test of time, and Christianity is not a revealed faith. It also means that God is the most cryptic author in the history of literature. (But thank goodness we have a bunch of men to bail us out from God's shortcomings.)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

...salvation is not something handed to us on a silver platter.

No, I believe it was a wooden cross.

By your statement you have shown us you believe you must earn your salvation. Paul denies this works-based justification, relying instead on the singular act of Christ's atonement, His blood shed for the elect.

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." -- Romans 3:20-28

[kosta50]

f that were true there would not be a disagreement over the worship of icons in the Mystic Church or the worship of idols in the Papist Church

There is no disagreement in worshiping icons in both Churches, or "idols" in the west. We do not worship "idols" whether they are icons or statues. We believe that saints are alive and we ask them to pray for us. That is not "worship" or idolatry. They are representations of real people. Images or real people are allowed.

When we pray we do not pray to the material that makes up a picture or a statue (paint, wood, stone), but to the person those images represent. If we smile in front of an icon, it's no different than when you look at a picture of you child or grandchild and smile. You do not for a moment believe that the pictures is your child or that the paper the picture is printed on is your child in person. The picture simply reminds you and mentally transports you to the person you are smiling at.

[jo kus]

I wrote :"Many will say, 'Lord, Lord'", and Jesus will say 'I never knew you'". Chilling words to the self-elected...

You responded : Yes, they certainly would be, and I am glad I don't know anyone like that. The reason you call us "self-elected" is that your leaders have interpreted scripture to deny certain of God's promises. That is understandable, given that the Church supersedes the Bible.

You don't know anyone like that? God's promises are for those who persevere in Christ, not someone in a moment of emotion "take on Christ as the Lord of their lives", which many times fails to materialize into reality...

As to the last sentence, I am asking you once to knock it off. I think you are beyond the stage of ignorance on this.

I wrote : If God allows us to sin "a little", why would He prevent us from sinning a lot, if that is what WE wanted?

You wrote : Because in this world we don't always get what we want. :) Concerning the elect, I believe God thinks it is more important that they are saved than that they get everything they want during this extremely brief presence on earth.

You are misunderstanding my question. If man sins PERIOD in this life, which God allows, why wouldn't He allow man to sin more often, even to sin grievious and fall away from Him? The fact that man CAN sin tells us that God doesn't actively override our will to prevent us from sinning or falling away. ANY sin is a sin against His infinite justice.

Why bother if God's foreknowledge is not rewritable? What chance does such a man have if God already knows it's over? You say God gives this man an opportunity, but what is it? This is contradictory.

Define what you mean by "Justice". How "just" would God be if He didn't provide ALL men an opportunity to be saved from himself? At the final judgment, we will see that God was just and that no one was unfairly cast into the abyss. They will have rightly earned damnation, as the wages of sin is death. Now, if God did NOT provide any help to such people, what sort of just God is He then? God loves ALL of His creation, it is inconceivable to me that He offers no help to certain parts of creation made in His image. Christ died for the sin of the WORLD - remember that is Scripture.

God directs sunlight over those whom He will, and He puts clouds over others whom He will.

Nice try but it doesn't work that way. Whatever light is available due to God's working of the weather effects ALL men below. This is not a factor in my analogy. God's graces shines on all, the good and evil alike. If man continues to walk in the darkness, as John stresses, then man suffers the consequences.

From God's POV, man's free will is His enemy. My point is that man's free will is in opposition to God's will. Our sin nature always opposes God.

God created man with free will for a greater good. He desired creatures who could love, as He does. You can't love without free will.

Well, under my view God is in full control, He gets all the credit, and His plan will be accomplished in full. I am trying to show you that you do not believe any of these things. :) For example, God is not in full control if He REACTS to the decisions of others rather than makes the decisions Himself. God does not get all the credit if man makes the final salvation decision. And, God's plan is not accomplished if He desires all men to be saved.

I also believe that God is in control. But I don't see it as a matter of God fighting man to drag him into heaven unwillingly. God desires a being who has freely chosen Him. Regarding God's desire that all men be saved, it is plainly in Scripture. Or are you again going to accuse Catholics of twisting the "plain meaning" of Scriptures? That fact of the matter is, whether you understand or agree with it, is that God desires all men to be saved. It is clearly written and we must clearly accept this as fact. Elsewhere, such as in Peter, the same thing is written. God died for the sake of ALL men, for the sin of the WORLD. Why would God die for the sin of the world if He only intended on saving a percentage of men?

God's plan IS accomplished - He STILL desires ALL men to be saved - but at the same time, He desires them to freely choose God. This falls in the same category as God desires all men to obey His commandments. It is a signified will, not a decreed will.

But in any event, I have always thought that God sees clearly who will reject Him, and that He has full foreknowledge. I honestly do not know what I said to make you think otherwise. (You don't have to do a big search, paraphrasing should do it.)

This is not the sense I have received from you on this question. These are my beliefs, but I didn't remember we agreed on this issue. God desires all men to be saved, but some choose to reject Him totally. God foresees this. God calls the rest predestined, and graces them appropriately. Thus, the predestined don't merit anything, while the reprobate earn hell. As I have said time and time again, God does not actively choose the reprobate, AND God actively chooses the rest to be the predestined, since God desires all men be saved - but He will not save those who do NOT desire to be saved.

Well, that view requires a very specific paradigm of interpretation that nullifies the so-called "assurance verses"

"Assurance" verses are given to those who persevere, not the presumptive Pharisees. You make perseverance a moot point in your "system". And believe me, there are plenty of perseverance verses...

Therefore, as God ACTS, inside of time, He really doesn't want all men to be saved.

I didn't follow your logic here. God definitely desires all men to be saved - He died for all men while ALL men were still in sin. God foresees that despite His aid in time, some men will still refuse Him. As a loving Father who has tried so many approaches but still is dealing with a difficult child who demands to be disinherited, the Father leaves such a one to His fate - the wrath of God, as in Romans 1. That is what God does to those who rejects Him, leaves them in sin.

And, that a man without faith can do acts which are moral on their face, but still are not pleasing to God.

Thus, every act of an unregenerated man is not sinful, then, is it?

Well, I never thought of Paul as a sadist, but then again, we're all sinners: :)

Sorry, Paul doesn't say the Law was meant to show how worthless man is. He says that merely following the Law does not earn salvation to heaven. To earn salvation by the Law, one must obey it PERFECTLY. Since men sin, we cannot justify ourselves under the Law. We MUST rely on GRACE. God doesn't give us the law for the express purpose of sadistically proving that man is worthless. That is not a Biblical concept. God is like a loving spouse to His bride. Is that the sort of marriage you see between God and man? Go read Song of Songs or Hosea someday.

I think there is a big misunderstanding when your side uses words like "force" or "coerce" to describe how we think God saves His elect. The elect never, ever, experience being forced.

That is EXACTLY the point I am making. The elect are not forced. You would have God drag EVERYONE to heaven for "God desires all men to be saved"!

It is never "forced" against someone's will, it is that God changes the will to want to come to Christ.

Man is transformed. But according to Protestant theology, man remains unchanged, a lump of crap, covered with the righteousness of Christ. Now, you are saying that man's will is changed for goodness? Perhaps there is hope...

If God wants everyone in heaven, then how strong is God's plea?

Very.

"There is no greater love than this, that one give up his life for his friends"

God died for men who were still in sin, "unfriendly" to God...

Wow. This is new. If I am not saved by a positive response, then what is the difference between NOT rejecting Him (neutral response) and accepting Him (positive response)?

If you are saved by your own positive response, then you are saying you merited heaven. There is no "neutral" response. Either you are with Christ or against Him. Again, that is clear Scripture.

By the way, we are not discussing anything about cooperation with God. That presumes that God is moving me to do His will in the first place. Thus, above, I say "your OWN" positive response.

So from birth salvation is ours to lose??? Joe, this is completely brand new. For an inheritance to work out, all a legatee need do is sit there and wait. In certain cases, he could sin and forfeit his legacy by going to jail or something, I suppose, but there is normally no act that is required of him. This goes against everything I know of Catholicism. Where is this coming from?

An inheritance is not earned. We don't "do" anything alone - but we CAN disinherit ourselves from this free gift. Thus, we are told to persevere in Christ, to work out our faith in works of love. Refusing to is akin to rejecting Christ. This is nothing new! When have I said we must do "x" or "y" to earn salvation? Our actions determine whether we are rejecting Christ, as, for example, He tells us in Matthew 25 and the parable of the sheep and goats. If you thought Catholicism was different, don't blame me, blame whoever is telling you such lies as "Catholics believe in works salvation".

What??? I don't appreciate the Passion and the crucifixion because of what? In your view, the Father could have snapped His fingers to effect the atonement of all of men's sins, but instead, He decided that Christ would go through all that because He loved us so much??? Where is the love in an unnecessary death?

That response merely proves again that you don't appreciate the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior - who CHOSE to give of Himself to the fullest - out of love. Who exactly did God owe the death of His Son to, anyway? God didn't have a debt to pay to some other diety to win us back! He CHOSE to show His death in a most humbling manner out of love - both the Son's love for the Father, and the Father's love for mankind.

The reason for the crucifixion was so that Christ could overcome the large obstacle of not wanting to die on the cross? You've lost me completely. Who are you, and what have you done with Jo Kus?!

Christ's HUMAN will did not desire the impending suffering - but BOTH His wills decided that His Father's will was to be His meat. The Divine Will had decided upon this course of action - not because it was "owed" to anyone, but out of love. What greater way could God have showed how much He cared for us, FK?

And on the other line you were so quick to tell me that God has obligations to us since He decided that He desires all men to be saved. When is it that God's free will applies?

God obligates HIMSELF! He is not bound by anything that man does, but what He does, for example, the various Covenants with man. HE BINDS HIMSELF! And we believe that His promises will be fulfilled because God is rigtheous.

Your discussion regarding the Passion has given me cause to question your concept of WHY He did it. It appears that you think God was 'forced' to crucify His only Son! Perhaps I have judged wrongly, but your posts seem to point in that direction.

I assure you, I am still Jo Kus :-)

Regards

[kosta50]

By your statement you have shown us you believe you must earn your salvation

You are confusing being justified with being saved. Once we are "justified" in God's eyes (by faith given to us) we must walk in Christ's footsteps and become Christ-like (theosis), or else our faith (and justification) is null and void.

Saint Paul was referring to the Jewish concept of being "justified" by observing the Law, by giving alms, etc. In other words, if you do ten good deeds, you "earned" ten points that will make you more acceptable to God. Obviously, Christianity does not believe that. But we do believe that faith without works is dead. We are justified by faith, but it takes a lot more than handing us a faith on a silver platter to be Christ-like.

I would imagine you subscribe to the one verse that says that it will be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. I am sure as soon as you were "saved" you sold everything and now live in poverty, love your neighbor as yourself and would slay your own children if God told you to do so, right?

No, of course not! You enjoy the gifts and blessings of the Lord. And you believe, I am sure, that faith alone is all you need to take you to His Kingdom without having to sell everything you have. Aren't we all like that?