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]

Hello, and Ping to 5360.

[blue-duncan]

"The New Testament was compiled by the Church and officially canonized in 397 A.D."

The canonization added nothing to the authority and inspiration of the books of the New Testament. The churches had already decided they were the Word Of God. All the the Councils did was distinbuish the legitimate from the uninspired.

[HarleyD]

Exactly my point. There wasn't anything added or deleted that wasn't suppose to be where it was.

[kosta50]

God has clearly told them and us, that He alone is their Savior. We do not believe "that someone else" suffered and died for us. We believe in John 3:16

Jews do not read John. You should learn about Judaism and what it believes. You will find that their idea of the messiah and ours is like night and day and that they do not believe a man needs to be saved but rather than man needs to make himself righteous in the eyes of God by good works.

[kosta50]

I believe Hebrews 11 addresses this. I was going to post the entire chapter but thought better

Summarize it, then.

However, one needs to consult Jewish sources as to why thye think there is no seamless connection. We think we are one and the same faith yet we don't have synagogues but churches.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "Who has ever said that the OT Jews who were of the elect were sent to hell?"

The Apostle's Creed, for starters. David, Job, the Psalmists all went to the Hades (Sheol). Perhaps Genesis 37:34-35

My Bible says "grave". The footnote says that Sheol most often means "grave" in the normal sense, but can also be taken to mean "the place of departed spirits", both of the righteous and wicked (heaven or hell). Even in the latter sense, in your Genesis verse, the place here would have been heaven. The same applies to Job 14:13.

According to you, only those who believe in Jesus can be saved. That means that those who were OT righteous could not be saved, which is why they were in the Sheol and had to be rescued by Christ. But if they were righteous, why did they need rescuing?

Well, that would only be true if ALL of your assumptions and conclusions were correct. I respectfully disagree with most or all of them. I disagree with your interpretation of Sheol, and the entire idea that anyone goes down to hades, and later needs rescuing. That is an invention of the Church, and some very agenda-filled interpretation. I don't even think you and the Catholics agree on the whole "after-life but before judgment" thing. I believe the righteous Jew of the OT was saved in the normal, for me, way. No need for any purgatory or hades.

[kosta50]

Although I will admit that I understand Him [Holy Spirit] the least, I most certainly do believe the Holy Spirit is a co-equal

Good. :)

I thought that you believed that Baptism was absolutely instrumental to salvation. When is it that righteousness is infused? After death?

"The sacrament of Baptism is the door into the Church, the Kingdom of grace. It is with Baptism that Christian life begins. Baptism is the frontier that separates the members of Christ’s Body from those who are outside it. In Baptism the human person is arrayed in Christ, following the words of St Paul which are sung as the newly-baptized is led around the baptismal font: ‘For as many of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ’ (Gal.3:27). In Baptism the human person dies to his sinful life and rises again to new spiritual life." (Orthodox Catechism)

As for when is a man saved, we would say when we are in harmony with the sacraments, when we live and walk with the Spirit, when we have attained the likeness of Christ through faith. Where else can we learn to wali and live with the Spirit but in the Church? Therefore, baptism is the first step in the salvific journey in faith.

[kosta50]

Well, I found a pretty interesting article on the subject on the Jews For Jesus website. (I figure they know better than me

Jews for Jesus is a Baptist abomination shunned by all, even liberal Christian organizations. They are not considered Jews by any of the known sects in Judaism. They are even denied by the so-called Messianic Jews.

Study Judaism, study what Judaism says about the messiah, what Judaism has been saying about the messiah all along. read why all three forms of Judaism stand united in rejecting Christ as a Messiah.

They are the ones who practcie Judaism; they ought to know. We don't practice Judaism; we practice Christianity. It's apples and organges.

I don't look at the OT righteous as having gone to hell. Their faith allowed them to be covered in the righteousness of Christ.

Well, that's where they were when Jesus went "down" there -- he broke the gates of Hell (not Hades) and pulled out the righteous. If they were righteous, why were they in hell?

[kosta50]

The canonization [of the NT in 397] added nothing to the authority and inspiration of the books of the New Testament. The churches had already decided they were the Word Of God. All the the Councils did was distinbuish the legitimate from the uninspired

Of course they didn't add anything to them! It is an oversimplification to say the least when you write that the "churches have already decided they were the Word of God." Just HOW did these "churches" decide this and based on what? HOW did the "churches" (do "churches" think or do fallible men who make up the Church think and decide?) do this deciding? All they had were individual scrolls with an Apostolic signature that could have been written by an Apostle or someone impersonating an Apostle.

You need to think 2nd century AD. There were no copyright laws in those days. And when there are hundreds of such scrolls around being read liturgically by what magic formula other than the knowledge of the faith that already lived in the Church could they have known what is correct and what is not?

It's like grammar. Do you know all grammatical rules? Most of us don't. But we know what is "correct" English, although we don't always use it. If someone tried to pass a piece of historical find as an American document and used such words as "tyres" and "petrol" or "colour" you'd immediately know that it wasn't an American document.

The church fathers had to have an intrinsic knowledge of what was genuine and inspired and what was false -- and that knowledge did not come from "Bible alone" i.e. the sola scriptura farce.

The gnostic "gospels" sound an awful lot like the real ones, so the task was not as simple as my example with English words or spelling, but a formidable one. This was especially true with the Revelation of John, which took the longest to approve. It took the "churches" over 300 years to "simply" decide to collect all the Word of God. You make it sound like they went to Barnes and Noble and placed their order for "Collected works of God!" Get real.

The compilation of the New Testament is in itself a testament of the Church Tradition, the knowledge of the faith contained in the liturgical life of the Church that pre-existed the New Testament. To put it otherwise: there was never even a possibility of a "sola scriptura" before the end of the 4th century AD.

[Forest Keeper]

When a person loves, they abide in Christ, even if they do not "know" intellectually about Jesus. By choosing to do God's will, to love, even if unaware of the NT Scriptures, this person is acting in the faith given by the Spirit, who blows where He wills.

I don't believe anyone is damned BECAUSE he has no access to a Bible. My concern was about "knowing" Christ. How can one accept what one does not know? If you say that any love is the same as knowing Christ, then I would disagree. "Love" has been given as the reason for multitudes of ungodly acts. I don't believe that anyone can choose to do God's will or to love on his own, whether he knows of the scriptures or not. God will touch those whom He chooses, and they will obey and love. If we can put aside the free will issue for just this point, then we might be pretty close.

[kosta50]

I disagree with your interpretation of Sheol, and the entire idea that anyone goes down to hades, and later needs rescuing. That is an invention of the Church, and some very agenda-filled interpretation. I don't even think you and the Catholics agree on the whole "after-life but before judgment" thing. I believe the righteous Jew of the OT was saved in the normal, for me, way. No need for any purgatory or hades

Okay, good point. There is no biblical evidence fo any of what the Orthodox call and depict in icons as the Harrowing of Hell, the resurrection of the Dead, the Anastasis. The source is the Apostle's Creed (of uncertain date, legendary; used by western Christians, including Western Orthodox, Latin-Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, and many Baptists but not Southern Baptists).

The Creed or Symbol is believed to have been composed to guard against and resist Gnosticism, and the legend has it that the each of the Apostles contributed to it. This Creed referrs to Hell ("He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again...") not Hades.

There is also a 2nd century apoctyphal Gospel of Nicodemus (this is before the NT was compiled). It describes Christ entering the Hades but the broken gates are those of Hell, and the keys of the door are falling into the abyss of Hell, and raising Adam and Eve (depcited in the Orthodox icon known as Anastatsis or "Raising").

The weak NT evidence of any of this can be found in 1 Peter (one of those scrolls that was not easily accepted as inspired), where it says that Jesus "went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah." [3:19-20] , and again in 1 Peter 4:6 in a similar fashion.

The famous "Harrowing of Hell" is credited to +John Chrysostom (5th century AD) who suggested it was a "necessary paradox". The OT righteous were in what was known as the Limbo patrum which no longer exists after Christ rescued them. Earlier, Tertullian and Origen taught the Harrowing of Hell (their later heresies notwithstanding) and St. Ambrose (4th century).

Some cite Eph 4:8-10, but it takes a "stretch" to see the same thing described by Necodemus or the Apostle's Creed. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote "when Christ descended into hell, by the power of his Passion he delivered the saints from this penalty whereby they were excluded from the life of glory." So, the "paradox" of the OT righteous being enslaved by death and in need of salvation.

I have asked why were the OT righteous captives of Hell? The answer is because even the righteous die, even they are enslaved by death, our last enemy, and only Christ can unchasckle us from the bonds of death. They couldn't do it on thier own or on their own merit. Even Theotokos did not resurrect on her own, but was resurrected according to our beliefs. Thus, being righteous does not automatically free us from the shackles of death; therefore no one goes to heaven until resurrected.

Thus, other than the NT reference that Chris proclaimed the Gospel to those who died before His coming, the rest of the Church belief in His entering Hades/Hell (actually "underworld") to resurrect or take the righteous appears to be non-scriptural as FK asserts, i.e. a Church invention. Interestingly John Calvin very much believed that Christ's descent into Hell was a necessary "paradox" if you will of our atonement (although there is no strong scriptural support for this).

Interestingly, we do not assert any of that in the Nicene Creed (we simply say that He suffered, died and was buried, and on the third day rose again); the Nicene Creed carefully avoids making such pronouncmeents.

So, we have a statement here by FK who claims to be a Calvinist but by his Southern Baptist tradition does not surbscribe to Creeds, who says quite convincingly that the Church simply invetnted the whole idea that Christ went to Hades to rescue the OT righteous from the bonds of the grave.

Any thoughts? Did the Church make this inventiontion and is it yet another invention that is nonbiblical and subject to doubt?

[Agrarian]

I jumped into this thread to make some comments about the Gnostic "Gospels" and their relationship to the New Testament writings (seemingly unnecessarily.)

With regard to the argument of continuity vs. discontinuity of Old and New Testament, Kosta and I have hashed this one out in great detail in the past and I see no need to bore the thread with continued reiterations of our respective views, since neither of us is going to convince the other (nor is agreement necessary). I will make a few comments, and then give Kosta the last word in this particular exchange.

First, I have never said that Judaism as we think of it today (or even as the Christian apologists of the early centuries thought of it) and Christianity are the same faith. One couldn't read the New Testament and come away with that idea. What I have stated is the rather unremarkable assertion that the Church viewed and views itself as in direct continuity with the faith of the Patriarchs and Prophets. Or, as Annalex has put it (quoting Catholic apologists), that Christianity is, at root, Messianic Judaism. One can disagree with this with as many permutations as desired, but I find it hard to see any other self-understanding in evidence in the New Testament or the patristic writings.

Second, in the Beatitudes, Christ is quoting or paraphrasing Old Testament passages in pretty much every case.

St. John Chrysostom gives, as OT sources for Christ's "blessed are the poor in spirit" the LXX texts of Isaiah 66:2, Psalm 50:17, and vs 16 of the Song of the Three Children.

For "blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth", he points out that this is a direct quotation from Psalm 36:11. Etc. The fathers have often done a marvelous job, surprisingly enough, of detailing the continuity between Old and New Testament, showing that the message was there in a form that allowed devout Jews like St. John the Baptist, the Apostles, Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathaea to recognize Christ -- and more importantly, of demonstrating that Christ is the very same "He Who Is" of the Old Testament (and as our iconographic tradition makes clear in every single icon of Christ.)

When it comes to loving one's enemies, St. Theophylact in his commentary on this verse from St. Matthew actually uses Moses as a prime example of someone who did exactly that in his life, and says that all saints (intentionally encompassing both Old and New Testament saints) have always done this. The Pentateuch itself (Numbers 12:3) says that Moses was the meekest man in all the earth, doing so in the context of an event where his own brother and sister were speaking against him with enmity. In this event, as in many others, Moses prayed to God for those who had spoken and acted against him.

St. John Chrysostom, writing about the text "think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets" that follows directly after the Beatitudes asks: "Why, who suspected this? or who accused Him, that He should make a defense against this charge? Since surely from what had gone before no such suspicion was generated. For to command men to be meek, and gentle, and merciful, and pure in heart, and to strive for righteousness, indicated no such design, but rather altogether the contrary."

Regarding David, there are a number of examples of his specifically doing good to his enemies. In fact, one of the direct criticisms that his own "second in command" general levels against him in a particular episode of his life was that David was loving his enemies rather than hating them. The seeds even of this idea and attitude are there in the holy ones of the OT.

Third, as another example of the Messiah being referred to as God in the OT, perhaps the most interesting example is Isaiah 9:6. I wanted to check the details of the LXX before mentioning it, since this is an interesting passage. Most translations of the Hebrew include "Mighty God" as one of the titles for the child who will be born. Brenton's does not have this phrase, so I was curious as to what the various manuscripts indicate. I won't bore anyone with too many of the details, but multiple manuscript traditions, including the Lucianic (i.e. official Byzantine Orthodox) rescension do include the phrase that includes "Mighty God", etc...

Something that I found particularly interesting, given his favorable view of the Hebrew texts is Origen's rescension, where the primary LXX version he was using apparently did not contain this phrase that includes "Mighty God." But, Origen inserted it, marking it with an asterisk -- which was his symbol for a passage that he was drawing from another LXX manuscript, specifically in order to include a Hebrew reading that his primary LXX manuscript had, in his opinion, omitted!

Of course, modern Judaism has their own explanations for the meaning of this passage, as is understandable, so it "proves" nothing. The question, again, is rather whether Christian belief and doctrine was present in nascent but clear forms in the Old Testament, waiting to flower into clarity when Christ actually did appear.

Certainly it was the Resurrection that sent the Apostles back to the Old Testament Scriptures with newly opened eyes -- but when they did, they did not arrive at the conclusion that they had to reject the faith articulated in the Old Testament Scriptures in order to be Christians. They rather came to the conclusion that Christ came to fulfil, not destroy, the Law and the Prophets.

Anyway, this is one that will continue to go on in circles, so I will stop there.

[Agrarian]

"Any thoughts? Did the Church make this inventiontion and is it yet another invention that is nonbiblical and subject to doubt?"

I think that you have already done a good job of mentioning a couple of Scriptural passages that the Church sees alluding to what is portrayed in our icon of Holy Saturday (commonly referred to as the icon of the Resurrection.)

Hades would not have been referred to in the original Apostles Creed, since it was a purely Western creed written in Latin, and was, as far as I know, never in liturgical use in the East in Greek.

Regardless, when the Apostles' Creed appears in Greek, "ad inferna" is translated as "eis ta katotata." This choice of words in Greek seems to be directly drawn from Ephesians 4:9 "eis ta katotera meri tis gis" (into the lower parts of the earth.) This is the only appearance in the New Testment of this particular construction.

But for someone familiar with the LXX, as St. Paul was, the language was familiar:

Psalm 62:9 -- "eis ta katotata tis gis" (into the nethermost/lowest parts of the earth)

Psalm 85:13 -- "ex athou katotatou" (from the nethermost/lowest Hades) [Hades here being a translation of the Hebrew word Sheol]

Psalm 138:15 -- "en tis katotato tis gis" (in the nethermost/lowest parts of the earth) [the LXX reading of this verse, incidentally has a quite different meaning from what translations from the Hebrew do in this verse, with the LXX seeming to refer to some sort of Hades/Sheol]

St. Paul seems to be directly using Old Testament terminology to describe a descent into some sort of lower regions, something most likely referring to Hades/Sheol.

This needs to be read in conjunction with the sermon of St. Peter in the 2nd chapter of Acts, where he quotes the Prophet David "Thou wilt not abandon my soul in hell (Hades), nor wilt thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption," with regard to Christ (vs 27, and then restating it for good measure in vs. 31 that Christ's "soul was not left in hell (Hades), neither his flesh did see corruption.")

Both Sts. Peter and Paul are speaking of Christ's descent into Hades -- the former in the sense that Hades could not hold him captive, the latter with the added bonus that he "led captivity captive" in the process.

Again, in light of the LXX being used by the Apostles, this seems to be a fairly clear use of language -- but then, I have a tendency to think that Orthodox teachings are always clear. :-)

The liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church are pretty clear on where Christ went. For instance, the stichera at the Synaxarion reading of the Paschal Vigil reads pretty clearly:

"Xristos katelthon palin Athou monos,
Lavon anelte polla tis nikis skila"

(Having gone down alone to do battle with Hades,
Christ hath come up, bringing many trophies as spoils.)

The full text of the Synaxarion reading includes this passage: "And now, having rescued all human nature from the dungeons of hades, He hath led it up to the heavens and restored it to its ancient dignity of incorruption. Yet having descended into hades, He did not resurrect all, but only as many as whose will it was to believe. The souls of the saints of ages past held perforce by hades He freed, and granted them all to ascend to the heavens."

The very moving Irmos of the 6th Ode of the Canon at Matins of the Vigil of Pascha (my personal favorite of the Irmoi) goes as follows:

"Thou didst descent into the nethermost depths of the earth (en tis katotatis tis gis), and dist shatter the everlasting bars which held those who were bound, O Christ, and like Jonah from the sea monster Thou didst rise from the tomb on the third day"

And the 2nd troparion of the 7th Ode: "We celebrate the slaying of death, the ruination of Hades, the beginning of a new and everlasting life..."

And the 3rd sticheron of the Praises at Matins: "O Christ Who by the Resurrection didst make Hades captive and raise men from the dead, count us worthy to hymn and glorify Thee with a pure heart." (Thus the Slavonic, although the Greek says "o ton Athin skilevsas," which more directly means that Christ "spoiled" Hades, in the sense of plundering it / carrying off booty.)

I'd better quit, before I get excited and start chanting the entire Paschal service and wake up my family!

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "My understanding of your view is that faith is ULTIMATELY man-generated."

Where did you get that idea from? Faith comes from God as a gift, as Eph 2:8-9 states, among others.

But I understand your view to be that God's gift of faith is worthless without the man-generated acceptance of it. Therefore, the only efficacious salvific faith is the result of a man-generated decision. Faith is nothing without man.

Thus, we say that love must be added to faith to achieve our eternal reward - which comes from God and accepted by man.

Again, faith is nothing without man. Only man can make faith worth anything. I would disagree. I believe that faith is more powerful than that.

[JK quoting FK:] "It sure looks like He [I am not sure if you are referring to Satan or Jesus here] used a lot of scriptures here, but not much Tradition."

Look more closely. Note that the devil and Jesus both used Scriptures - that tells us that Scripture can be twisted to suit one's personal needs. Thus, the need for Tradition, which gives us the correct interpretation. Christ was giving us Tradition by stating the correct interpretation and utilization of the Scriptures.

LOL! You win the most self-serving comment of the thread award! :) satan twisted scripture, THEREFORE Tradition is correct. I love it! Let me try. Joseph was thrown into a well, THEREFORE Tradition is correct! --- All kidding aside, satan did not twist or misinterpret scripture, he fully MISQUOTED it, just as he did to Eve.

BTW, I was referring to Jesus. I don't even capitalize satan's name so I also do not with the pronouns.

The Thessalonians ALSO read the Scriptures. So did other Jews. What happened? Isn't Scripture so clear for even a child can read it and understand it???

On certain levels, it is. But this is only for those who have been given eyes to see and ears to hear. That is why I believe it is perfectly appropriate for some 6-year-olds to say a legitimate sinner's prayer.

You have told me time and time again that God leads man infallibly to choose good or evil. If man has no free will, how is man responsible for his actions?

I have told you no such thing. I HAVE said time and time again that God graces some and passes over others. I don't see that as the same thing as "leading". Man is responsible for his actions because God has no responsibility or duty to save any particular man through gracing him. He does have a duty to save some unknowable number of His elect as He has already promised to. The reprobate are left to themselves. This is fair and just.

Protestants believe that man is totally corrupt after the fall and remains in sin even AFTER his regeneration. Their is no REAL regeneration, we are merely covered with alien justice of Christ. With this paradigm, you read the Scriptures - thinking that man cannot possibly do anything to prepare or cooperate with salvation.

I do not know how you are using the terms "totally corrupt" and "remains in sin". I do think there is a real regeneration. The old has gone and the new has come. We are given a heart of flesh for our heart of stone. And yes, we still do sin, but we are new people. But, we still cannot earn our salvation through our own cooperation. God accomplishes it to His glory, not to man's glory.

Basically what you are saying is "FK's belief are the Word of God"...When you say "Protestants are not the authority, God is", that is baloney, because God doesn't "speak" in that manner.

I know, I know, God only speaks in Catholicese. What I am saying here is that I am no authority, the Bible is. You deny the Bible as an authority unto itself. To you, only (your) men are good enough to interpret it. The Bible is not good enough to interpret itself. Of course, I do consider opinions of scholars who are of like minds, but they must prove everything with scripture for me to believe it. Nothing short will do. To you, everything must be proven through unscriptural tradition first.

You are presuming, along with all of your non-monolithic brothers, that God speaks to YOU personally - and often contradictorily.

I know, I know, God is much too busy conferring with Catholic priests and bishops to have any time for the sorry likes of someone like me.

[hypothetically] I could certainly bring out enough verses to prove that either the Spirit or the Son is NOT God.

Really? Proof? Well, then you have me beat. In any event, you would have a bunch of answers for every attempt, wouldn't you? That would negate the proof.

Yes you are [told how to interpret scripture]. You are told that Genesis is to believed as literal history and CANNOT be taken as allegory. Otherwise, you are told, how can we know ANYTHING to be historical? Your whole concept of Biblical inerrancy comes to a crashing thud if your literal interpretation is disproved.

I really think you are confusing your own reality with ours. No one has EVER, EVER taught or told me that I must take Genesis in the young earth sense. That was absolutely an individual decision that I have made. I am absolutely certain that there are many in my own church, whom I deeply respect, who do not hold that view. I just personally see it as being more consistent. That's all. I can't explain the math otherwise. AND, I do keep an open mind so that if someone can make a compelling case that is SCRIPTURALLY SUPPORTED, I might well be open to changing my view. That is sanctification. ... My whole concept of Biblical inerrancy is totally unaffected in this situation (as far as I know!). There is allegory in both the old and new testaments.

You, on the other hand, cannot know if you are correct, or the guy across the street in the 2nd Baptist Church of Main Street is correct. This is quite scary, to be honest.

It is true that I cannot know if I am correct about every aspect of theology, but that doesn't scare me, that excites me. It causes me to keep on searching and learning everything I can, to bring me closer to Christ. However, on the flip side, there are several things I can be sure of, including things about which you cannot be sure. I also see that as "scary". I guess it works both ways. :)

Sure, there are some particulars that we are told is Truth. Is that a problem?

Not at all. I also have particulars that I take as unalterable truth. We might even share in many of them.

[Forest Keeper]

God was being humble and Fatherly with Adam. He gave Adam every opportunity to repent.

In case of the Flood He was "sorry" and "grieved" that mankind turned the way they did -- I don't think so.

So, God IN HEAVEN can be humble, but He can't be "sorry" or "grieved"? I tend to agree with you on the latter. But, IMO, God had no cause to be humble to Adam. (Jesus was humble BEFORE man, but not TO him.) Just in my own thoughts, I have believed that God was trying to show something to Adam by calling out to him for his whereabouts. Imagine yourself in Adam's (almost) shoes. :) If you knew that God was God, and you heard Him asking where you were, what would you have thought? I might have thought that something bad was up, and I was in the jackpot.

FK: "Didn't God create us to eat innocent animals?"

No. "Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you" (Genesis 1:12) ... It is only later that man began killing animals, as the rest of the creation became corrupt by our Ancestral Fall.

Wow. I have never heard this view before. I have heard the one that says that God changed the rules after the flood, but I'm not even sure I buy that one.

God wouldn't hand down His law in light of man's corruption would He? God said specifically that lambs and other animals were to be sacrificed, and then what was to be done with them? Weren't the Levites supposed to eat them? His priests? If this was not what God intended, then how could He have commanded it?

The other offer of proof is one YOU, over others, should appreciate. :) This is along the lines of the "birds 'n' bats" discussion we had earlier. God created us as OMNIVORES! If He didn't want us to eat meat, then why did He construct our jaws and teeth as He did?

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "But, if we persevere through our own actions, then why isn’t that earning salvation?"

Being "saved" in Orthodoxy (and I am quite sure in Catholicism too) means "how Christ-like" you are -- hitting the mark. How Christ-like is sufficient? As much as possible! That is why we venerate our saints, people who have attained that "holiness" about them through works of faith, through meekness, through renunciation of everything worldly, through humility, through love, through self-sacrifice, etc.

I appreciate your (entire) post, but I'm not sure how it answers my question. My understanding of salvation in Catholicism is as you say also, a lifelong process that really isn't completed until after death. During life, we use our free will to perform various works of faith and other godly deeds in order to become more Christ-like. My question is that SINCE free will is free, and uncoerced, and of man, then how is this not earning our salvation? I'll even throw out intent in any negative sense. Isn't it true that if a man performs "X" amount of deeds to achieve a level of Christ-likeness to an "X" degree, then he is saved? Even if all the deeds were done from love, is this still not earning it?

[HarleyD]

HD-I believe Hebrews 11 addresses this.

Kosta-Summarize it, then

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Heb 11:2 For by it the men of old gained approval.

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God,

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel

Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch

Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him,

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham,

Heb 11:11 By faith even Sarah (let's not forget the women)

Heb 11:16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.

Heb 11:19 He [Abraham] considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type.

Heb 11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, even regarding things to come.

Heb 11:21 By faith Jacob,

Heb 11:22 By faith Joseph,

Heb 11:24-25 By faith Moses, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. [sic:MOSES CONSIDERING THE REPROACH OF CHRIST!!!]

Heb 11:31 By faith Rahab the harlot

Heb 11:32 And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets,

[jo kus]

Exactly my point. There wasn't anything added or deleted that wasn't suppose to be where it was.

Good to see you trust the Catholic Church on something...

Regards

[jo kus]

If you say that any love is the same as knowing Christ, then I would disagree. "Love" has been given as the reason for multitudes of ungodly acts

Not the Biblical notion of love. People may try to justify their actions under the auspice of love, but it is self-love in reality. When someone self-sacrifices, they are loving, and this is NEVER sinful, when done for the love of God and others.

I don't believe that anyone can choose to do God's will or to love on his own, whether he knows of the scriptures or not.

So when Paul says we are a new creation, and that we have the ability to live in the Spirit, he really means we are puppets and can do no good? Hardly. Paul makes it pretty clear that the old man and the new man in Christ have different capabilities. You would have us the exact same except that the "regenerated" man is merely a legal title with no additional abilities or charecteristics. That is patently untrue. In Christ, I can do powerful deeds of love.

God will touch those whom He chooses, and they will obey and love.

Again, the Scriptures say that man can choose to obey God or reject Him. Thus on this basis, we are judged.

Regards

[jo kus]

God's gift of faith is worthless without the man-generated acceptance of it. Therefore, the only efficacious salvific faith is the result of a man-generated decision. Faith is nothing without man.

If I give you a billion dollars, what good is it if you never use it and put it in your attic? I have the ability to reject God's supernatural gift of faith, as well.

Only man can make faith worth anything. I would disagree. I believe that faith is more powerful than that.

That's because our idea of God is quite different. I believe that God is love and you believe that God forces people against their will to be dragged into "heaven", which would turn into a veritable hell for people who didn't want to be there...

All kidding aside, satan did not twist or misinterpret scripture, he fully MISQUOTED it, just as he did to Eve.

Satan didn't quote Scripture to Eve, and Satan didn't "misquote" Scriptures to Jesus. The point is that anyone can take a text of Scripture and make it say something totally different then its context.

I HAVE said time and time again that God graces some and passes over others. I don't see that as the same thing as "leading". Man is responsible for his actions because God has no responsibility or duty to save any particular man through gracing him. He does have a duty to save some unknowable number of His elect as He has already promised to. The reprobate are left to themselves. This is fair and just

God has a "duty" if He SAYS He desires ALL men to be saved, AND that Jesus died for the sin of ALL the world. You keep ignoring Scriptures on this, brother. If God is righteous, He does not say "I desire all men to be saved" and "Jesus died for the sin of the entire world" - AND THEN NOT give ALL men at least an ability to choose good or evil! This is a contradiction that remains in your Protestant view on this matter. IF man CANNOT choose the good without ANY of God's graces - and God does NOT give ANY grace, then exactly how is that just? If God says "FK, you can't get into heaven unless you benchpress 10,000 pounds by yourself", and He didn't spot you, would you consider God to be a fair and just God? Not by any definition of the word... And don't bother with the "our ways are not God's ways". If God acts this way, He no longer fits the human definition of "just". We must call Him something else.

I do think there is a real regeneration. The old has gone and the new has come. We are given a heart of flesh for our heart of stone

But this is meaningless in the practical world to you, since you believe that God must do EVERYTHING. We cannot even choose goodness AFTER our regeneration, so the "regeneration", the "heart of flesh" are just status terms with no real meaning. Utterly ridiculous. God MAKES people righteous in reality, not just legally!

You deny the Bible as an authority unto itself.

The Bible has authority because it has been RECOGNIZED as the part of the Word of God by the CHURCH! Otherwise, it would just be another historical book. The Church speaks for Bible's authority, since the Church wrote it!

To you, only (your) men are good enough to interpret it.

I have never said that! I only say that the heirarchy is legitimate interpreters when heresy is being taught. Interpretations must fit into the Holy Tradition given to the Apostles. There is only one faith, not many. The Bible is not meant to have many diverse and opposing meanings on the same subject. This is Relativism - every interpretation is as good as another. Really, is that what you are proposing? That man choose what God says? That certainly sounds like it. This makes Christianity a religion of man, rather than a revealed religion from God.

Proof? Well, then you have me beat. In any event, you would have a bunch of answers for every attempt, wouldn't you? That would negate the proof.

You are missing the point. IF the bible was meant to be argued over verses, WHO would make the decision on who was correct? Or does the Church split into factions? You tell me what is the intention of God here? One Church or many opposing churches. The fact of the matter is that man can come to the bible with many weird ideas and "prove" them from verses found within.

I just personally see it as being more consistent.

Science has given ample evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years, and that the earth is a round three-dimensional object that revolves around the sun. Perhaps you might disagree. But if so, it is not because science has given insufficient evidence. It is because you are stuck in the "literal sense only" mode of interpretation. Can you say unequivocably that God MEANT Genesis 1-3 to be taken literally? We DO NOT know that from the Bible ALONE! Nowhere does it say that it is NOT allegorical.

It causes me to keep on searching and learning everything I can, to bring me closer to Christ.

LOL! How do you know that a new theological viewpoint doesn't take you FURTHER from Christ's Truth? There is only one truth, and it is objective. It is not dependent on our opinions. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. You know this is the word of God - but you do not believe it. Ask yourself if you are REALLY searching for Truth or something that sounds good to YOU.

Regards