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.

But even martyrs have nothing to do with redemption, so I don't see how Mary's suffering can put her into such a one-woman class.

It's not the suffering itself that makes her a "co-redeemer". It is the fact that she participated and gave of herself to God during the event that untied the knot of disobedience tied by Adam and Eve (if I may paraphrase St. Irenaeus, c. 180 AD). Her participation, like Eve's, was not needed - but God willed for both females to take part in their respective events.

The person with saving faith will want to obey God, and will do so, albeit with mistakes here and there.

Faith is not "saving" WITHOUT those deeds of love. Remember what James said? "Does that (workless) faith save?"

We need both.

Well, the NT doesn't give Eve any "credit" for helping in our destruction, does it?

Paul seems to think so. Perhaps he already thought highly of Mary, since Paul ALSO talks about Jesus as the Second Adam... We'll never know.

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" 2 Cor 11:3

Therefore, I don't understand all the fuss to bring Mary into something that really only belongs to Christ.

I don't see all the fuss about crying over the fact that Mary is highly regarded by Catholics and Orthodox. Would Christ be happy about such disparaging talk about His Mother? Do you get upset when other people give compliments about your mother? The fact of the matter is that GOD HIMSELF Willed that Mary be there - from the first miracle at Cana to the end of the Passion. She participate in the fact that she gave her will totally to God - something that Eve did not do. She clearly was the handmaiden of the Lord. We cannot honor Mary ENOUGH! It is the mind of the Spirit revealed in the action of the Church for 2000 years that we DO honor Mary. But none of this replaces what Christ did on the Cross. Mary is nothing without Christ.

So, looping in what Alex has said, is Hades and Limbo the same thing? ...

I would say no. I would say Hades no longer exists, after Christ's Redemptive Work.

Christ's death was absolutely necessary for both the OT righteous, as well as for us. But it appears that you are placing God into time here. If for God every moment is one, then why can't the redemptive work of Christ be also effective "immediately" for those in the OT? You are correct. It is "retroactive". But men are within time, so there must have been some "waiting" period. St. Aquinas talks about time moving differently for those in the afterlife, different then God or our time. I forget the term he uses... But there is some sort of time where the OT righteous "waited", from their point of view.

From God's POV, which is what we're talking about, Christ's death was "complete" before the Incarnation, so to speak.

Sure, but God had to come into time to make it effective, correct?

Regards

I was specifically thinking in the area of discernment. Since I do not agree patently with everything that Calvin and Luther said, I cannot say that their gifts of discernment were better on every issue than "all Protestants". However, I could say that in general terms their gifts of discernment were greater than mine. I mean, I "could" have studied all the languages and read the texts to the degree they did, but I really doubt that I would have come up with writings as profound as theirs. For me, it would be the same with medicine or rocket science. I could try with all my might, but it wouldn't "happen".

I think you are confusing a gift of the Holy Spirit, discernment, with a human ability, say, knowledge and ability to read foreign languages. The two are NOT the same thing. The former is from the Spirit, a supernatural gift, not dependent on the intellectual level of the recipient. The most profound writings have often come from the simplest of people - I believe our Orthodox friends would comply with that. Discernment, while aided by our natural gifts of intellect, is not dependent upon them. It is the Spirit that gives life - and light - to whom He wills. To the Church, He has promised to infallibly guide it. He does this through the Bishops and the Magesterium.

However, since you do agree with many of their other writings, would you not say that, in general, they had a higher level of this gift? Why else would these Saints be held up so high?

One of the "requirements" of being considered a "Church Father" was holiness. Holiness not only from the level of their writings, but in their actions. This made their writings more authoritative. One must experience the Risen Lord to write about Him! Many Bible "scholars" are quite knowledgeable about the Scriptures in the natural sense. But by not praying them daily, they often miss the deeper spiritual meanings that the Church Fathers were able to mine and deliver to the people. It was the gift of the Holy Spirit during prayer (Lectio Divina, esp.) that enabled them to discern the Spirit in the Scriptures.

Regards

Hmmmmm....this is certainly a puzzlement. I might be misinterpreting St. Theophylact’s writings and I certainly don’t wish to make a mountain out of a molehill. But this was the part that bothered me in Theophylact’s writings that you posted:

“By saying, 'Elijah truly shall come,' Christ shows that he has not yet come, but that he will appear as the forerunner of the second coming; and when he appears, he will restore all teachable Jews to faith in Christ, as if restoring them to their paternal inheritance which they had lost. …What Christ is saying is this: when Elijah the Tishbite comes, he will make peace with the unbelieving Jew, and will bring them to faith. thus he will be the forerunner of the second coming.” – St Theophylact

Calvin states that this isn’t true; that John was Elijah:

“The promise,” says he, “that Eliah would come was true, and has been already fulfilled; but the scribes have already rejected Elijah, whose name they idly and falsely plead in opposing me.” – Calvin

As you suggested I read through Chrysostom’s view on this. To be fair, Chrysostom’s Homily tends to be a bit convoluted but I believe Theophylact is misinterpreting what Chrysostom is saying. I would reference the following:

To show therefore that the Tishbite comes before that other advent, which hath the judgment, He said this. And the reason too of his coming He teaches withal. And what is this reason? That when He is come, he may persuade the Jews to believe in Christ, and that they may not all utterly perish at His coming. Wherefore He too, guiding them on to that remembrance, saith, “And he shall restore all things;” that is, shall correct the unbelief of the Jews that are then in being.

…

And whence did the disciples know this? He had already told them, “He is Elias, which was for to come;” but here, that he hath come; and again, that “Elias cometh and will restore all things.” But be not thou troubled, nor imagine that His statement wavers, though at one time He said, “he will come,” at another, “he hath come.” For all these things are true. Since when He saith, “Elias indeed cometh, and will restore all things,” He means Elias himself, and the conversion of the Jews which is then to take place; but when He saith, “Which was for to come,” He calls John, Elias, with regard to the manner of his administration. Yea, and so the prophets used to call every one of their approved kings, David; and the Jews, “rulers of Sodom,” and “sons of Ethiopians;” because of their ways. For as the other shall be forerunner of the second advent, so was this of the first. Chrysostom

I would suggest that Chrysostom isn’t talking about all the Jews being saved at the second coming of Christ as Theophylact suggest. Rather Chrysostom seems to be saying that John the Baptist came in the same “manner of his [Elijah] administration” and the conversion of the Jews (who walk by faith) had converted to Christianity as Calvin suggest.

When I said "always" I meant "at any given time". I know that you believe that God always HAS the power to intervene in anything, but I thought you would say that God would not ever use it "against" man, if man's free will would be quashed. You know how many times I have read on this thread that God loves us so much that He will not force us to do (or not do) anything, so this is where my comment is coming from.

I see the problem that St. Augustine and others had when arguing a point of view. Sometimes, one can argue a side so aggressively that the balance is tilted. We have two apparently contradictory truths here: Man has free will And God desires that all men be saved. By arguing to aggressively "man has free will", it leaves God's divine sovereignty in apparent trouble. This is the problem with arguing such theological issues. We must not argue one too much - in either direction - that the other is excluded or contradicted. This is a difficult thing to do.

Because you hold to only ONE of these truths, I have been arguing free will. Probably more aggressively than need be. The truth of the matter is that we really don't know the interaction of these two TRUTHS. They are BOTH found in Scriptures and must BOTH be held! I see you only holding to one, while paying lip service to the other. This will not do. St. Augustine said that "faith comes first, then reason". Thus, we must have faith that BOTH of God's revelations are true - although we may not have the reasons to explain our particular discussion to our fullest mental satisfaction.

Men have the free will to choose God. Men are empowered, by God, to obey His commandments. Man will be judged based on how he complies. On the other hand, God desires all men to come to Him. He has the power to actually bring ALL men to Him if He desires this as a decree. God has ALWAYS desired men to come to Him and has empowered them with a desire to do so:

"And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." Gen 4:26

Obviously, it is GOD who placed this desire within mankind! But why does God NOT give ALL men "efficacious grace"? Does He foresee their rejection? We have been arguing this off and on for quite awhile. All I can say for sure is that we must hold to both truths, not fully understanding the HOW.

This is for what I have labored so hard and for so long to hear. :) [Faith is not only something given by God to men, it is a RESPONSE to God's grace. Faith ALSO depends on man] I think this takes away from God's sovereignty, and this difference is one of the main points (tangentially, if not explicitly) of the original article of this thread. You can't really tell me then, that "everything" comes from God. It cannot, if your sense of free will really is true.

I have been reading and studying John's Gospel, the Gospel of Faith, as called by some. I think you may find your answers in there. God calls men to Him. But at the same time, faith is also a response to the message of Christ. Jesus preached to the entire audience, but only some came to follow Christ. Perhaps to help, it might do good to remember the Parable of the Sower and the Seed. The soil is man's response. It is certainly prepared and chosen by the Lord, but the seed, God's Word, falls on this soil. So the Word finds fruit in the faith in which a man responds to God's prompting. Christ is calling for a relationship between us and Him. A relationship requires a response when one makes the initiative. Our response is not our own, certainly. But it is not God alone, either. God has given us the gift to respond - but we must use it. And this is the daily choice we face. To sin or not.

Besides, what good are any of God's promises to those who persevere when none of them (those who persevere) can be known until after their dead?

God is promising that He will not pull the rug out from under those who respond to Him - NOT that God will reward us with heaven no matter what we do after our faith proclamation made 20 years ago. God's promises are for those who persevere. THEY will be the elect after the fact. God doesn't promise that those who enter the Church are the elect. Remember the parable of the wheat and the weeds? We just don't know that I am of the elect. We know that God will keep His promise to reward those who persevere, who obey His commandments, who ask for forgiveness of sins. He doesn't promise heaven to those with dead faith.

And of course the obvious question to you would be: Do you consider your sins to be a burden? Did God relieve you of that burden by dying on the cross, or does man take care of his own burden by doing deeds and sacraments to redeem his own burden of sin? I know you don't believe that. Is this a misunderstanding?

They are a burden until I confess them to our Lord and Savior, admitting my failure and promising to make an effort in the future to do better - with His help. I know many a Christian who ARE burden with sins. Some on this very thread seem to be burden with hatred for things Catholic. Hatred IS a burden that they carry, even though Christ died on the cross 2000 years ago. Christ only releases the burden of sin from those who turn to Him. Completely.

Regards

As you know, I largely disregard the Alexandrian textual tradition as a curiosity that is of academic interest only, since it is very sparse, corrupt, and variable compared to the Orthodox Byzantine textual tradition. It is preferred by modern textual scholars primarily because it is has a number of readings that are less orthodox than those found in the Byzantine textual tradition -- their academic "cover" is that the handful of uncial manuscripts they prefer are quite old.

Actually, they prefer it. It creates controversy and allows mediocre scholars to elevate themselves with daring new theories. The corruption of the texts and their disagreements in key passages are the stuff of which these modern scholars of mediocrity have based their reputations. Naturally, they can keep 'correcting' their previous work and changing their Greek texts and therefore their NIVs and other versions so that they can keep their copyrights intact and profitable. A lot of this nonsense is driven by copyright law and the franchise of Zondervan and other publishers who think you need to buy just one more bible to add to that shelf of bibles you don't read anyway.

Follow the money and the copyrights.

(These are the same people who disregard the LXX readings of the OT -- even though our MSS of it are far older than any Hebrew MS. The KJV translators actually made much more use of the LXX readings to clarify Hebrew texts than do modern translations.)

A key point and one we have not dwelt on previously. It speaks to the tremendous scholarship in the Reformation when many of Europe's finest minds were fully engaged with producing a pure text for the common man.

The most influential textual tradition in which "through his blood" was found is actually consistently found is (drum roll please)... the Latin Vulgate. So I find it hard to find any nefarious Catholic machinations at work here.

Interesting. As I commented earlier, it is sometimes puzzling to determine why certain readings persist over the centuries regardless of which manuscript family the translators use. This is true even of modernist texts which at times conform to the KJV even though their own chosen manuscripts don't seem to support it.

FK, what the Reformed doctrine holds is that when Ananias told St. Paul to "be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord...." -- well, he really didn't mean it literally that way. :-)

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... :) I've never studied Acts 22:16 before, so this was something of a challenge. From what I found, it appears that this is a classic case of dueling scriptures (this scripture that apparently says that baptism washes away sin, versus all the other voluminous scriptures that say the work of Christ on the cross washed away our sins), and an interpretation must be made. It seems the central question to legitimizing the Reformed position is WHEN was Paul actually saved, or when did he become a believer? Was he saved on the road to Damascus, or was he saved when he was baptized at the house with Ananias? I think a decent case can be made for the former.

First, we know that the Gospel he preached he received directly from Christ, not from Ananias:

Gal. 1:11-12 : 11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

This means that for him to have become a believer at baptism, he would have had to discount what Jesus taught him personally, but then accepted it through Ananias at baptism. I somehow doubt that this is how it occurred. Christ was calling him and instructing him in person. Paul was evidently moved to use the word "Lord", and he apparently was sufficiently impressed to follow the command of Jesus to continue on his way into the city, even though he had just been struck blind.

Now, I know that we have different ideas of what salvation is as contrasted to the remission of sins. But, we have no evidence that Ananias stood in as Paul's proxy because Paul did not have faith at his baptism, so I hope we can agree that he had it by that time. I am assuming that adults must have faith to be baptized. That makes it important when Paul got faith.

One evidence that we have that Paul already believed well before he was baptized (i.e. while still blind) was three verses earlier, in 22:13. Here, Ananias calls Paul "Brother Saul".

1 Cor. 5:11 : But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

This indicates that in Paul's mind, a "brother", in this context, was a believer. Since there was no question of any sibling relationship between Paul and Ananias, it appears reasonable that the term may have been used in a similar way here.

The bottom line is that consistent with the Reformed position, if Paul accepted Christ in His presence, then he already had the Spirit then, and his sins were remitted then (from the human POV). If, OTOH, Paul rejected Christ while in His presence, as Christ was calling Paul to His ministry, UNTIL (or unto? :) Ananias talked him into believing, (because Jesus didn't/couldn't?), then verse 16 could mean that baptism actually washes away sins. I just don't see this as reasonable.

One counter to all of this could be to say: "Who cares when Paul believed? Even as a believer his sins were not remitted until baptism. This brings us into looking into where the greater weight of scripture is. Is it on the side of baptism remitting sins, or is it on the side of Christ remitting our sins?

The Reformed view is consistent with the majority of scriptures such as:

1 Cor. 15:3 : For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ...

Gal. 1:4 : ... who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, ...

1 Pet. 3:18 : For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, ...

In my view, all of these verses, and many more, go against the interpretation that baptism actually washes away sins. Therefore, I believe the greatest weight of authority, which for me is the Bible, says that it was Christ who washed away the sins of His elect, not anyone's baptism.

Didache (c. 70-100 AD) omits to mention that "breaking of the bread" and drinking wine during Eucharist is sacramental, or that it is Real Presence in Body and Blood of Christ. Perhaps that was just how some Christians "understood" it. Which is why 300 years later the Church had to convene the first Ecumenical Council to clear up some of the seirous misconceptions that evolved.

But it does raise an interesting question. Just as an example, if baptism of infants is a sacrament, then how is it effective when the object of the baptism, the infant, is oblivious? Does following the teachings of the Church (or a church) by any orthodox believer not in the grip of a fatal heresy but who does not fully understand exactly why he is obeying the dictates of his church (or tradition) still constitute a blessing and proper obedience?

When you look at history, whether Catholic or Orthodox or Protestant, it is not such a simple question. I am not proposing I have an answer by any means. I believe sincere belief and being a diligent student of scripture and the ancient church are the best solution for this. In the end, we have to trust in God to judge the heart and know that we can never practice the faith in absolute perfection.

It's not the suffering itself that makes her a "co-redeemer". It is the fact that she participated and gave of herself to God during the event that untied the knot of disobedience tied by Adam and Eve

The Bible doesn't mention Mary as co redeeming anyone from sin.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by *one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of *one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by *one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

It is the obedience of ONE, Jesus Christ, not Mary.

Also note that Adam is held accountable for the sin, not Eve.

Eve was deceived, Adam knew better and did it anyway.

It would appear that Mary's refusal would have caused the entire damnation of the human race then.

God saw to it that Mary wouldn't refuse by preparing her, even in the womb, for her role in salvation history. God certainly foresaw Mary's "yes".

So Mary must have been some sort of Calvinist who succumbed to Irresistable Grace

Grace can be resisted. But God foresaw that it would not be due to His sight and preparation of the vessel that would hold the Christ.

You suggest that Mary was not entirely a creature fully possessed of free will.

Not at all. That is why Mary is so highly honored - due to her "yes" and God's graces that He singularly had given to Mary.

In so doing, you rob Christ of His full humanity

So Mary must possess complete free will for Christ to be fully human? How so? Not that I am saying Mary did not have free will! But I am intrigued on how you came up with that conclusion.

Regards

From what I found, it appears that this is a classic case of dueling scriptures (this scripture that apparently says that baptism washes away sin, versus all the other voluminous scriptures that say the work of Christ on the cross washed away our sins).

The action of the Church in Baptism is the application of Christ's Salvific work on the cross to the individual. It is a case of Subjective Redemption. Christ died for ALL men, Objective Redemption. But not all men are saved. Thus, Christ's Work must be applied to the individual. Subjective Redemption. The Spirit works through Baptism to bring the Redemption won by Christ to the individual - the remission of sins.

When Scriptures "duel", you can't just ignore one of them...

The bottom line is that consistent with the Reformed position, if Paul accepted Christ in His presence, then he already had the Spirit then, and his sins were remitted then

No, the Spirit can work within a person WITHOUT the remission of sin! Christ's Spirit has been written on the hearts of ALL men, according to Paul in Romans. But does this mean that the Spirit's work "SAVES" that man? Hardly. The Spirit works where He will, but it doesn't mean that this person is saved - sins are remitted. This requires something more. It is by Baptism, when the believer takes on, in faith, the works of Christ into his heart. This is an additional gift of the Spirit. Thus, the Spirit works in different degrees in people. The Spirit worked within Paul, prompting him to believe in Christ and to accept Baptism. It is only with his Baptism does Paul's sins become remitted. Thus, we personally are saved through Baptism, normally.

Regards

The sins of the elect are forgiven.

Are those whose sins forgiven necessarily the elect? Recall the parable of the wheat and weeds. The field, the Church, is full of "saved" people - those who accepted Baptism. But will they persevere? Thus we come to your presumption again. Remember that Paul wrote to CHRISTIANS that they could be DISINHERITED from their inheritance that was set aside in heaven. Disinherited means you receive NOTHING, not a lesser reward...

I am starting to piece together that what you think happens at Baptism, I think took place 2,000 years ago on a cross

I explained this in my last post, so I will give you an opportunity to respond. Know that Christ died for the sin of ALL the world. This is a Scripture that is inerrant and God's Word. So at what point does a person take on the Work of Christ and apply it to his own personal situation? Or do you say all men are saved - since Christ DIED for all men?

in your system, there could be a perfectly good believer who goes to hell because he hasn't gone through the ceremony. I didn't put that together before, since we've never talked about adult new believers. Heavens forbid! NO! A person can also be "baptized by desire" or "Baptized by blood". Catechumens, those who have not been baptized by who are beginning to come to the faith through our RCIA program are bound for heaven if they died before the actual ritual. If a person would have been baptized if they knew about what it entailed, but are prevented by ignorance or death, than God takes that into account. God NORMALLY works through the sacrament, but is not bound by it - so said St. Augustine vs. the Donatists.

From the standpoint of my own knowledge, I consider myself saved at the point of belief. From God's POV I was saved at the beginning.

Considering we don't share the same definition of "saved", I don't see the point in arguing WHEN it happens, given all the possible scenarios that prevent baptism and its relationship to initial faith. One must not only HEAR the voice of the Shepherd, one must also FOLLOW the voice. Naturally, hearing and not following is a good sign that one is not "saved", by my definition.

Regards

The Bible doesn't mention Mary as co redeeming anyone from sin.

It implies that she had just as much to do with co-redeeming as Eve had to do with bringing about mankind into the realm of sin.

Paul already makes half of the connection by calling Jesus the New Adam. Certainly, this would make Mary the New Eve, the woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15, the woman mentioned at Cana and the foot of the cross. As Simeon said, a sword would pierce her heart. TWO people's hearts were pierced at Calvary for the sake of the Father's will in heaven. Mary will be called blessed by all generations...

It is the obedience of ONE, Jesus Christ, not Mary.

Yes, and as Adam's sin condemned man to death, Jesus work on the Cross redeemed men. However, as Eve participated, was present, was more than a bystander to Adam's action, so did Mary. Neither females were necessary in their scenarios, but it was God's will that they participate and were present. They added nothing to the male's respective work, but just the same, God had them both there. Thus, we can say that Mary was a co-redeemer. There is a lot of deeper meaning to Mary, which is why one would be better served meditating on what exactly was her role and her continued role as being the woman of enmity against the "serpent" even today.

Regards

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.