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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FK: "Did the writers of scripture have a special grace not given to future Bishops?"

The Catholic Church has never claimed that individual bishops are inerrant.

I know, I meant it as a straightforward question. I DO believe that the scribes of the scriptures were given a special grace. Since later bishops did not have it, that diminishes the powers transferred through Apostolic succession.

But I understand your dilemma: because you reject the idea that the Holy Spirit has ever guided the Church that compiled and finalized the New Testament, you have no logical reason to believe that the New Testament is inerrant.

No, there's no dilemma at all. And Kosta is right about my "pre-fab" answer in this situation, (as if only Protestants have pre-fab answers or that it is a bad thing). I actually think the Holy Spirit guided the Church 1000 times more strongly than you do! :) I don't think that God left anything to chance with the creation of the scriptures, so He didn't have to "hope" that all the scribes would follow His guidance. He took matters into His own control and produced the works despite the fallibility of the scribes.

"as if only Protestants have pre-fab answers or that it is a bad thing"

They don't and its not. It's all about that bit in St. Peter's epistle:

"We have the more sure word of prophecy; and you do well that you heed it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns, and the morning star arises in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit."

The whole point to this passage is that divine revelation comes from God through holy men of God, that divine revelation cannot be of private interpretation but only of the interpretation of those holy men of God, and that the Church thus has "the more sure word of prophecy" than do those who try to interpret it privately -- by whatever personal, spiritual, or scholarly means.

The entire witness of the Fathers is that they did not ever consider themselves to be writing anything new, but only to be restating for their own times what those sure words of divine revelation say and mean. This, by definition, leads to pre-fab answers (a major criticism of the Fathers is that they "never say anything new.")

The question, FK, is whether whose pre-fab answers you are going to trust -- those of the Fathers of the Church from the earliest centuries, or those of the Reformation's fathers (not directly appealed to as authority, of course, but passed off as being understandings that each person just happens to arrive at through independent reading of Scripture...)

The other thing that I would point out is that the pre-fab answer needs actually to fit the question being asked. You do a pretty good job of trying actually to answer questions and statements directly, and I appreciate that. What is annoying is when a specific question is asked, and the reply given is "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." -- a point no-one disagrees with but that had nothing to do with the point at hand.

Simply learning generic English of today may not give you the ability to read Shakespeare without explanatory notes and without cultural and social backgrounds of the characters involved in the story. You would have to read it in context of the times in which it was written.

Yes, I can agree with you in principle. But that brings us to the issue of the timelessness of the Bible, and what the translations have meant throughout the ages. I freely admit that I am probably in a small minority of all posters here who prefer to use the NIV. My impression is that versions like this were made to handle just this sort of problem. The main objection that I have seen to the NIV is that it is not word-for-word, which, of course, is true.

However, it has always been my habit here that, when I read a verse from another poster from another translation which I have not already memorized, that I look it up in my NIV. In all of those times (a few hundred) the number of times I have thought that the verse actually said something materially different from my version has been less than 2%. I don't think that's so bad, since it doesn't even necessarily mean that the other translation was "better". The whole point of going idea-for-idea is to compensate for the contexts and culture differences, etc.

When you look at your loved ones, you know a lot about them, because you have a memory of them. Sola scriptura, to us, is like looking at them for the first time, read their resumes, and claiming to know them. Impossible! The Holy Tradition is a documented "memory" of the Church. The Church knows the faith as you know your family.

Sola Scriptura for me is just as you describe Holy Tradition is for you. Sola Scriptura is the ultimate "documented" memory. :) And likewise, when I see Tradition that appears not to match with scripture, then that is like looking at my loved ones for the first time.

The Church knows the faith as you know your family.

And I would say the Bible knows my faith like I know my family.

[On an analogy of using the Sola Scriptura approach to learning about Vietnam:] Your approach is that all one needs to do is read a reliable weekly magazine story about that era, or a lengthy summary in an encyclopedia, and you will get the whole picture! That's what sola scriptura is; incomplete; impossible.

Well, that's not a bad summary of our disagreement. I happen to believe that when God puts His holy word to page, that He is both complete AND possible. In fact, perfect. When fallible men start adding or subtracting from God's word, I think that's asking for trouble.

FK: "I would also say that faith produces good deeds, and faith comes only from God. So, our difference would be to what degree you believe faith is man-generated. My view is to say 0%."

I would respectfully disagree. Faith doesn't produce anything. God does. Whether it is our love, our faith, our repentance, our contrition - it is all moved by God. God calls man to respond to Him in faith, in love, in repentance.

And I would respectfully disagree that you disagree, I would say that you do agree. :) You are true to Catholicism in being a champion of free will and cooperation with God. It seems to me then, that you actually need some of your own "faith" in order to accept God's faith. On what else does a man base his decision to accept God, given that he has free will to reject? Therefore, this "faith" that a man uses to accept God's gift is "man-generated". That's what I'm talking about. I still put the number at 0%. I'm guessing you would have to put it higher.

FK thinks that JK postulates: "So Mary is the singular wife of God?

FK backs this up by making the amazing comment : "You did when you said: "Who is going to have sex with another person's wife? Not a normal person." Who is the other person, if you don't mean God?

I'm speaking about Mary being married to Joseph! Who is going to have sex with Joseph's wife? How in God's name did you ever think that I said Mary was married to God??? Wow! Weren't we talking about Mary and Joseph and why they got married?

And please speak for yourself on "things to do" when we reach 70. :)

How old are you?

Yes, it sure does [Mary and Joseph had sex], and I still don't see why this is the end of the world for you, especially since you appear now NOT to think of Mary as Mrs. God. :)

Oh brother. This from a Sola Scriptura charecter? Where does it say that "Joseph knew Mary"? Don't go beyond what the Scriptures say - what ever happened to that?

Mary asks how can this be since "I AM a virgin" or "I have known not a man". Mary does not say since "I am PLEDGED to be a virgin (forever)".

Sure. Woman who are betrothed to be married always asks such questions like "duh, how am I going to have a child - I am going to be wed soon..." What sort of arguement is that? The response of Mary would be "Wow, that's wonderful. Thanks and praise to God". Not "how can that be...?" A person in a normal relationship does not ask how a child will come into existence...

And the question for you - why are you arguing this point anyway? Does it crush a Protestant belief or do you just enjoy arguing about Christ's Mother?

Regards

What sort of evidence do I have that your "decision" is guided by the Spirit and not your own personal opinion or even the devil? What does Paul say about the devil disguising himself as an angel of light to trick people? The problem with "each and every person being a pope" is that it is not feasible and is logically ridiculous, given that people don't come to the same message of what Scripture say. Between two Protestants, when you say "x" and it disagrees with another Protestant, then is the "Spirit" who tells you otherwise lying? Or is HIS "Spirit" lying?

What a mess. Fortunately, God didn't leave us in such a state. God desired that all men come to the knoweldge of the truth. WHERE IS THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH? Deny it all you want, but it is in the Bible. Or are you one of those Protestants who ignores the parts of Scriptures you don't like?

This does appear to be quintessential Catholicism. Men have the power and authority, not God's written word.

Men's power is based on the Written and Spoken Word of God given by Christ (God) to the Apostles. Unless, of course, you don't believe in the Apostles' teachings are from God.

They are so different that one must dominate, one must be read in light of the other. You already indicated above which is the dominant authority. Men have the power. Sure, you can make the meanings match through interpretation, but you'll never be able to get the actual words to match.

Are you aware of how Christians came to the belief of the Trinity? Do you think the Scriptures alone told us? Arius thought that and was flat wrong, just like Protestants who read the Scriptures outside of Sacred Tradition.

Are you forgetting that the history of the Catholic Church has been to discourage the reading of the Bible in favor of oral teachings?

The Church discourages people from reading the Bible OUTSIDE of the Apostolic Tradition, the original meaning and intent of the authors. Heresy starts when man thinks he can rationalize God's intent spoken through the Church.

That [The very fact that we disagree on Scriptures should point out that Scriptures do not interpret themselves!] is a disjointed argument. That's like me saying that because we disagree on your Tradition, it is wrong. The scriptures do interpret themselves. Some see it, some do not.

The Scriptures are read through a particular concept that the reader already has. You read it with different ideas. You, for example, think that man is evil and totally corrupt and can do nothing to cooperate with God's grace, nor can he refuse the Holy Spirit. Thus, you read over passages that deny that or twist them to mean something else. Thus, Scriptures alone don't do much good by themselves. You should know by now that a person can prove practically any point of view from the Scriptures. Have you not argued with another Protestant over whether Baptism is necessary for Salvation? The two of you will post verses that prove your points and you will both call each other wrong.

And neither will ever know who REALLY is correct...

Not really a great way for "man to come to the knowledge of the truth".

Regards

You are true to Catholicism in being a champion of free will and cooperation with God. It seems to me then, that you actually need some of your own "faith" in order to accept God's faith. On what else does a man base his decision to accept God, given that he has free will to reject? Therefore, this "faith" that a man uses to accept God's gift is "man-generated". That's what I'm talking about. I still put the number at 0%. I'm guessing you would have to put it higher.

God gives us a gift. Faith. We can use it or not. God works within us the desire to do His will. We can choose to or not. At some level, man is expected to use his own intellect and will to decide on whether to follow the promptings that are foreign to him - to do good. If man does not cooperate at all, then this drastically changes the meaning of great swathes of Scripture that tell US to persevere, US to love, US to have faith, US to repent. WHO EXACTLY is God telling to do these things? Himself? Is God talking to Himself to provide faith in "x" man?

You are forgeting that the Bible clearly expects man to respond at some level to God's gifts. It is MAN who will be judged based on what he does - not on what God does.

Regards

FK: "Your answer cannot be that Baptism is a grace, because there is no element of faith in an infant Baptism, so that still contradicts Ephesians."

That makes absolutely no sense. What better way of identifying baptism as grace, as a free gift, than Baptism given to an infant - who can do absolutely nothing to deserve or earn it, unlike the adult who must first "achieve" a certain amount of faith...?

That makes absolutely no sense. :) You are making my point. You have told me a hundred times that a free gift cannot be forced, it must be freely accepted. This cannot happen with an infant. By definition, Baptism IS 100% FORCED on an infant. The idea of proxy is a cop-out. Lay-parents cannot bestow salvific effects, even in Catholicism, unless you have a new lesson for me. :) This grace that you have God ramming down the throats of infants sounds exactly like what you accuse us of all the time. :)

It is not Catholic teaching that babies are condemned to hell for not being baptized. St. Augustine's theory was never accepted as Catholic doctrine. We do not believe such are reprobate - since one must actively sin to "earn" hell.

OK, perhaps this is a difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy that I didn't know about.

Kosta, I thought you have said that in Orthodoxy, an unbaptized baby who dies is not free of the fallen nature and would be technically lost forever. Of course, God makes the final call, and can save whoever He wants. But "by the book", an unbaptized baby who dies has a serious problem. :) Is this fair?

This is contrasted to Joe's above, which says that any baby cannot go to hell before he reaches the age of reason and is capable, for the first time, to sin. Is that fair?

If I have been fair with all of this, then is it just a difference of opinion, like mine with other Reformers about infant Baptism, or is this a matter of doctrinal difference?

You have told me a hundred times that a free gift cannot be forced, it must be freely accepted. This cannot happen with an infant. By definition, Baptism IS 100% FORCED on an infant. The idea of proxy is a cop-out. Lay-parents cannot bestow salvific effects, even in Catholicism, unless you have a new lesson for me. :) This grace that you have God ramming down the throats of infants sounds exactly like what you accuse us of all the time. :)

So every Jew up until the time of Christ - to include Christ - was "FORCED" into the community of God by circumcision? If it is a cop-out, then go to the Scriptures and blame them - they tell us that an infant should be circumcised to become part of God's people. So is God "coping-out"? In both Baptism and Circumcision, Jews nor Catholics consider this as the final means of entering Heaven. It is just the entry into the Church. We are now God's children as a result. We can certainly give up our inheritance later. If Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism, it should be plain that there is a precedent being set for infant baptism by the fact that for 2000 years, people were already bringing their children into the Church by circumcision (Church defined as God's community of people)

You have said that unwritten traditions are fine as long as they have apostolic basis. Really, are you defending Sola Scriptura for the sake of an idea? Isn't 4000 years enough precedent for you?

I think on this, Latins and Greeks agree that something different is in store for unbaptized babies - but it is not hell. I think some would call it paradise but without God's abiding presence.

Regards

... if you're sure you want me to open this can of worms, I will. If you or others will join in the theological/spiritual mental experiment.

I will, albeit late. Since this is my first Christmas vs. Easter debate I have to warn you that my arguments are very unpolished. :)

The Incarnation is the defining moment of Christianity. Cosmos-shaking, The Word was God, the Word became flesh. This, fully contemplated, cannot be fully contemplated. ...

The Incarnation cannot be the defining moment of "Christianity". Think of it this way: in order for Christianity to even exist, the Incarnation was necessary, but not sufficient. Christ could have been incarnated, walked around for a while, said "hello" to some folks, and then went back to heaven. The result is no Christianity. God doesn't "need" Christianity, we do. So, its existence and meaningfulness has to be taken from our POV.

Only the Resurrection was both necessary AND sufficient for Christianity to exist. You agreed that it was the proof of what Christ claimed. If He had not risen, then He would have been rightfully exposed as a liar, and Christianity would have fallen on its face immediately. This makes the Resurrection superior to the Incarnation, even though the latter is still necessary. The "birth" of Christianity was much more tied to His being risen than to His being born.

The Incarnation is inseparable from the Trinity; it defines the Diety for Christianity, it is unique. It unites God and Man like no other event, like no other religion.

But the only value that definition has owes itself completely to the Resurrection. If Christ does not rise, then there is no definition. We can play chicken/egg which I assume many do. I ask myself, which was the bigger event from man's POV? Christ could have been born and walked among us, but that doesn't mean there ever would have been Christianity. Only the resurrection meant, as absolute proof, that Christianity was real and true.

I would agree that a contemporary Jew would not share the same faith as a Christian, but I can't assume that their faith is the same as the OT righteous

Oh but I do! The OT righteous did not believe in Three Persons united in one Divine Essence (Nature) in a perfect loving community that we know as God(head). The post-Jamnia Judaism (derivative of Pharisees) doesn't either.

Our faith is defined by Christology. We believe that God's Word became Incarnate and was born of the Virgin, and suffered and died for our sins, and was buried, and resurrected on the third day, and sits to the right side of the Father, and shall return to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holky Ghost (Spirit), who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and Son is worshiped (as one God).

The Jews know God through the Law; we know God through Christ. The most important difference is that Judaism does not believe man needs to be saved. We do. Judaism believes that God made us capable of saving ourselves by works, and thus making ourselves, as obedient children, acceptable to God. We believe we are made acceptable to God through His grace. Your Calvinist friends believe some are acceptable because they were pre-destioned from all eternity to be acceptable. That is not Judaism, OT or post-Jamnia!

Messianic anticipation in Judaism did not begin until about a century before Jesus was born. Prior to that, the Jews did not expect a meshiach (messiah). The interpretations of the Tanakh (the Five Books of Moses) of an "anointed" one (a mortal human) who would restore the disintegrated Kingdom of Israel (Jewish kings of at the time of Chrust, as well as the High Priests, were Roman appointees; to wit: Octavian, Ceasar Augustuis, appointed Herod as king; Pontius Pilate, a governor of occupied Israel, appointed Joseph Chaiphas as High Priest; they were Roman puppets). The meshiach (messiah), which does not mean "savior" but the "anointed [by God]," a title bestowed to all kings on the kings of the fallen Kingdom of Israel, never meant anything even closely resembling our definition of Christ, the Greek term also meaning "anointed," which morphed into "Savior," and the "Son of God." So, neither etymologically, not spiritually, does the Hebrew word "meshiach" (messiah) correspond to what the Christians made of it later on.

The OT righteous did not expect the savior because Judaism does not expect one. The OT righteous did not even expect a meshicach because of the historical time frame in which they lived. Messianic mindset began to grown after the Babylonian Captivity and the fact that the Jews were once again not free. If anything, the Jews from about 500 BC onward could have believed only in God's mercy to send them a new Moses, someone who would deliver them from the oppressors, and who would re-establish the Kingdom(of Israel), first and foremost. As time passed, that expectation grew into a mythical belief that the meshiach will establish peace on earth and be the one who will make the God of Abraham known to all so that they may convert to Judaism (i.e. believe in the same God).

Thanks for playing. :) This is one of those seemingly useless exercises that, IMHO, is useful to explore and learn from. And, of course, I'm gonna take the opposing side.

Only the Resurrection was both necessary AND sufficient for Christianity to exist.

Nope. Necessary only in "proof." Had God been incarnate and not claimed resurrection, or visible resurrection, Christianity would still exist. The trinity, the passion, the sacrifice, all there. Resurrection was mostly proof, and what do we hear about those who require miracles to believe?

If He had not risen, then He would have been rightfully exposed as a liar…

True, but for this exercise, I'm stipulating that if He wasn't going to resurrect, He wouldn't have said He was, hence no claim of resurrection, thus no liar.

But the only value that definition [Trinity] has owes itself completely to the Resurrection. If Christ does not rise, then there is no definition.

Sure there is, the Trinity still exists with or without the resurrection.

Now here's where you've got me thinking. The Ressurrection is proof, but also one thing more in Christianity: it describes/defines a great deal of Christian eschatology.

So I'm gonna concede a tad, it's more than just proof. Without the Resurrection, Christian eschatology would not be as clear - absent additional teaching or theology from other sources.

thanks for your reply.

The whole point of going idea-for-idea is to compensate for the contexts and culture differences

Now you are beginning to articulate my mindset -- the Scripture proclaims ideas that are eternally true and inerrant. The Scripture transcends all time and culture in its message, not in physical facts.

Sola Scriptura for me is just as you describe Holy Tradition is for you. Sola Scriptura is the ultimate "documented" memory

Unfortunately that is wrong. Read Didache. Written before the end of the first century AD, (while the Gospels were still being written, and the Gospel of John not even in the works yet!), it tells us a lot about Christian practices and early Christianity in general.

For instance, it describes baptism as being done by triple immersion into a "living" water (when possible), or by triple pouring over the head if a baptismal pool were not available. It also requires that the person baptized and those participating in baptism fast for two days, on Wednesdays and Fridays and not on "Mondays and Thursdays as the hypocrites do," here making reference to the Jewish custom of fasting on Mondays and Thursdays. The Baptism is to be made in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

ALL of these customs are still practiced in the Orthodox Church, so we can be pretty certain that in that respect the Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Church alone, remained unchanged in the last 2,000 years.

What is important here is that none of this is described in any of the three Gospels that existed until then, nor in John's Gospel that followed. So, here we have a definite example of the Holy Tradition working in the Church while the Gospels were in the making.

It shows that not everything in the Bible (sola scriptura) is the "ultimate memory."

The Didache, however, also shows that the Church did change and even invent some things as time passed. For instance, it talks only of bishops and deacons, but not of presbyters (priests). Yet +Ignatius mentions as early as 107 AD that the Church already had a full three-tier clergy, bishops, priests and deacons. Today we even have subdeacons.

One could object that this is not theology, yet Didache also describes something that does affect our theology very much: concerning the Eucharist. First the order of the Eucharistic offering is reversed from the current practice: wine first, bread second. It is unclear why the Church reversed the order except that the habit may have become entrenched in the primitive Church before the Gospels account of the Mystery (Last) Supper in which they place breaking of the bread first, and drinking the wine second, contrary to the Jewish custom of wine first and then bread.

It is difficult to believe that Jesus, Who was a pious Jew, would have reversed it. Perhaps the Gospel writers decided to do so to distinguish Christian "Eucharist" from the Jewish custom.

More importantly, the Didache (which means "Teaching") talks about the Eucharist as simply being the "breaking of the Bread" and "drinking of the Wine" and not of Christ's Real Presence (i.e. physicial, bodily presence), or it's life-giving mysteries.

So, from this work we can see that some of the practices have indeed been preserved by the Church before the New Testament was completed and are therefore part of the Holy Tradition and the "combined memory" of the Church that exists besides, and in parallel, and in spiritual congruity with the Scriptures, thus rendering a very strong argument against the Lutheran sola scriptura error.

At the same time, there is some substance to the Protestant claims that the Church was not delivered ready-made (just as the NT was not!), and that human intervention and interpretations had a lot to do not only with the ecclasiastical structure and praxis, but with some of the passages that we know from the Gospels, such as the deliberate reversal of the Jewish custom of drinking the wine before the bread.

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