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.

Well, according to your posts, you say that man does nothing to cooperate towards his salvation. Thus, he cannot do anything good, according to you, even as a regenerated Christian abiding in Christ. If I misunderstand your point, it is because you have failed to explain exactly how man is responsible and will be held accountable for something he has no power to do - to do good. You have consistently said that man does not cooperate. And now, you say that man can NOT choose sin? Well, which is it?

I have said that man does not cooperate with his salvation. But this does not mean that AFTER salvation he is unable to do good. After what I call salvation, God has enabled man to do good in His eyes for the first time. Any misunderstanding is probably due to the God's POV vs. man's POV issue.

I will say again that from man's POV, he can do nothing "good" before salvation. After salvation, man is able to choose to do good, or able to choose to sin. OTOH, from God's POV, all good comes from God, so He gets all the credit and glory for causing all the good we do after salvation. From God's POV, men are still free to sin. When I responded as I did, I assumed you were only talking about doing good, so I did not address the sin side. I believe that I have always said that man is free to sin, but I wasn't sure if you thought that counted as "doing" something.

We have discussed the responsibility and expectation issues at length. I'm not sure what else I can add, but if you have a specific new question, I'll be happy to try to answer.

And who wrote the "answer sheet"?

I would have said I thought your answer would be "fate", based on the other line, but that might be changing. I'll wait to see your response there.

I sense a condescending tone in your reply... Hmm. The problem is that you don't know who the elect are. Thus, we persevere until the end. If God told you that you are of the elect and cannot fail, what is the point of Him telling the EVERYONE to persevere? And who is Jesus telling to persevere? God or man?

I'm sorry if I sounded that way, but it was not my intent. I genuinely take from your answers that you judge God's justice by man's standards, saying that it cannot fall short. You have said this, yes? Therefore, man sets his own standards, and God's standards are measured against them. God's cannot fall short of man's. I have said why I disagree, that they are different standards altogether.

I do not persevere because I'm not sure if I am of the elect. I persevere because God said so, and a member of the elect wants to obey God. I don't see how God is telling EVERYONE, including the lost to persevere. The lost cannot do any good in God's eyes, so they cannot persevere. On who is actually persevering, it can be answered either way, depending on the POV.

Are any of the sheep named "Forest"? It is a parable expressing how willing God is to bring His community to Him.

Yes, one sheep is named Forest. "BAAAAAAA!" See? :) If the parable had spoken in "communal" terms, using words like "herd" a lot, then you might have something. But it does just the opposite, it specifically speaks of individual sheep.

If you are of the Church, it is to the degree that you share the Catholic faith.

And I would say that God's Church is composed of all of God's elect, all believers, no matter their individual denominations, if any. So, every time I disagree with the "Church" I mean the RCC, since I know that to you God's Church and the RCC are one in the same. My, opposite, attitude is that I don't think you need to be a Protestant to be a member of God's Church.

Jesus saw the same attitude [as FK's] in the Pharisees...What was His attitude towards them? I am sorry, but Christ didn't think too highly of presumptuous behavior.

Presumption also goes both ways. Your hierarchy presumes to speak for God, presumes exclusive ownership of God's Church, and presumes to rewrite the Bible in order to conform to Tradition.

And probably from your definition of salvation, which is not a Scriptural one. Salvation is seen as a past, present, and future event. It is not ONLY a past, one-time event. This is probably where a lot of the confusion stems from.

As to works not necessary for salvation, James disagrees:

My brethren, What shall it profit though someone says [that] they have faith and do not have works? Shall faith [without works] be able to save them? James 2:14

Faith without works is dead, so how can one not have works of love and still think they will be saved? Paul agrees by saying that faith, even if it can move mountains, is NOTHING without love.

As to cooperation, I have found the Gospel of John very helpful lately in seeing how a disciple's work IN Christ is not different then Christ's Work IN the Father. That is what is meant by sharing in life, or as Peter calls it, a share in the Divine Nature. I have found that God often points me in the right direction when I have such conversations. I wish I was more grateful sometimes...

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes in me, the works that I do he shall do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do because I go unto my Father." John 14:12

It seems clear to me that with "life" within us, we can do the works of God - to believe in Jesus Christ and obey His commandments.

I will say again that from man's POV, he can do nothing "good" before salvation.

And I will again disagree. When united with Christ, it is not I alone who works, but God working in me. Based on this cooperation (or lack thereof) will I be judged, not on a one-time acceptance of Jesus as my Lord and Savior... But of course, I am using a different sense of "salvation" then you - because that one-time, first time justification is not the end.

We have discussed the responsibility and expectation issues at length.

I still do not understand how a person is judged "on his deeds", knowing that man cannot even cooperate at all with God's graces. You seem to have avoided giving an explanation on this, chalking it up to "God's Judgment" - which appears to be less than man's idea of judgment.

The Scriptures clearly say we can reject the Spirit. Is this not a use of free will? Thus, by NOT rejecting the Spirit, our deeds, our cooperation with the Spirit will be seen as loving and worthy of reward.

you judge God's justice by man's standards, saying that it cannot fall short.

God's standards EXCEEDS man's standards. You seem to say that God's standards do not even REACH man's standards, but that's OK, since God is God, YET, evil is good, justice is injustice, love is selfishness, and all this makes sense because God's ways are not our ways??? This defies any common sense.

Therefore, man sets his own standards, and God's standards are measured against them.

Men don't set the standards. However, we have a good idea of them based on revelation and that God's work in nature mirrors His work in the supernatural. Thus, we are pretty sure that our idea of good is SURPASSED by God, rather than God's idea of good being our idea of EVIL! God doesn't work in opposites, but transcends our understanding. He is BEYOND human mercy. You would have me believe that God's mercy does not even maintain man's idea of mercy!

I do not persevere because I'm not sure if I am of the elect. I persevere because God said so, and a member of the elect wants to obey God.

God said you were of the elect? Do I dare ask how or what Scripture you base this self-determination? I have yet to find your Christian name in the Bible! Is this a tradition? :-)

If the parable had spoken in "communal" terms, using words like "herd" a lot, then you might have something. But it does just the opposite, it specifically speaks of individual sheep.

It does speak of the community. You'd have to go to the Synoptics to find the more individualized message. However, this still does not prove that YOU are one of the individual sheep. Thieves are ALSO in the sheepfold - Christ says so in John 10:1. Only those who hear AND FOLLOW His voice are Christ's sheep. Today, from our point of view.

God's Church is only the elect? Is that what you are saying? The Bible would disagree with that over and over again...Only the angels during harvest time will select out who is the wheat and who is the weed - AND THE WEEDS WILL BE BURNT! There is no "lesser rewards" for those who are "in" the Church but are weeds...

No, I would admit that being a Protestant is not a necessity to being part of God's Church!!! That is pretty laughable! However, I haven't said that one must be Roman Catholic formally, either.

Presumption also goes both ways. Your hierarchy presumes to speak for God, presumes exclusive ownership of God's Church, and presumes to rewrite the Bible in order to conform to Tradition.

The presumption is based on eyewitness testimony, as the beginning of 1 John opens: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life (for the life is manifested, and we also saw [it] and bear witness and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father and appeared unto us); that which we have seen and heard we declare unto you, that ye also may have communion with us; and truly our communion [is] with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be fulfilled" 1 John 1:1-4

If you believe that the Scriptures are from God, then you'd be hard pressed to deny that the Church is NOT from God! You can't have one while denying the other.

Regards

The whole point to this passage [of Peter and about private interpretation] 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.

That seems like a little bit of a stretch to me. The passage does not say that only "Holy men" can interpret scripture, it says that prophecy was only given by Holy men. There is also the matter of "private interpretation". I would agree that no scripture should be "privately interpreted", and that brings us back to the problem of our disagreement about to whom the Spirit will speak. I believe that God does guide the "little people" like me. :)

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...)

I do agree it is a matter of whom to trust. And of course I would disagree if anyone made an assertion that any interpretation challenging that of the fallible men of the Church is automatically private and therefore error.

Much of the reason I find myself currently distrusting the hierarchy of the Church, and its "ancestors", is the degree to which power has been declared transferred away from God and to men. Of course the Bible is declared to agree with this, since the recipients of the power are the only ones authorized to declare what the Bible says. That seems to work out pretty well for all those who have the power. :)

Another main problem I have is with the declared interpretation of scripture. I am thoroughly convinced that if the Church's interpretation of the scripture is correct, then the Bible is substantially incomprehensible to anyone without that interpretation. It is like a secret code, and only the men in power have the decoder. God does not have this decoder (such that He would share it with any of the little people) because the men in power have declared that God has transferred it to them.

Since it is true that the reach of the Bible has long ago outstretched the reach of the RC and Orthodox Churches, and God knew that this would happen, I just can't bring myself to believe that right now uncounted millions of people have in their hands an essentially useless revelation of God's word. I can't believe that is God's will. I cannot answer the question of why God would inspire His written word indecipherably to all but a small few.

Of course, my side uses interpretation also, but as I examine the degree to which words must take on new meanings and whole concepts, across many passages of scripture, must be interpreted counterintuitively to the actual text, I see no comparison between the sides. My "advantage" is that I don't "need" the Bible to match anything outside of the Bible because I don't think there is anything else of equal authority. This is not true of the Church.

And I don't think it is a matter of what came first, scriptural Tradition or extra-scriptural Tradition. Many, many things have been declared infallible since those in power held the Bible in their hands. I do not find it credible that absolutely everything that the Church holds infallible today was well known and widely established before the Bible was assembled.

So I think that you really nailed the heart of it when you brought up the issue of trust. And, I can fully understand how anyone could trust the Church. There is a lot of history, and there are a lot of like-minded people who agree. I do respect that. And I do respect that you reached a point in your life when you felt truly led to re-evaluate. I suppose all any of us can do is to follow the lead we believe has been placed on our hearts.

"The passage does not say that only "Holy men" can interpret scripture, it says that prophecy was only given by Holy men."

Do you suppose that the Apostles wrote their works in a vacuum? Do you not suppose that various faithful would ask St. Paul: "Could you explain what you meant when you wrote _______?" What was St. Paul talking about all night when Eutychus fell asleep in the window?

Surely you don't think that St. Paul would respond, "Well, my friend, it's Scripture, so your interpretation of it is as good as mine... just read it and figure it out by refering to other Scriptures, with the Holy Spirit to guide you."??

Of course not. The Apostles were actively preaching and teaching, and the people that they preached to and taught did preaching and teaching of their own.

This is why I, like a stuck record, keep asking Protestants to show me evidence from the early centuries of the Church that there was serious controversy about the things that Protestantism says the Church invented or perverted.

So many of the things that you disagree with in what we believe have no controversy associated with them. Take for example your own belief that infant baptism is not an Apostolic practice -- where is the record of the controversy over this when infant baptism was introduced. Where is the controversy over prayers to saints, asking them to pray for us, veneration of relics, the ever-virginity of the Theotokos, etc.?

If these things were all perversions, surely the teaching of the Apostles would have had enough staying power to last at least a couple of centuries, and the "true followers of the Apostles" would have raised a holy ruckus over these things. Yet, all we hear is historical static.

Some say that this is because the Church suppressed it -- but then we would have the Church's record of *its* side of the story, telling about these heretic proto-Baptists and the crazy things they believed! :-)

Again, historical static is what we actually have.

So, I do not think at all that we can separate the holy men who wrote the Scriptures from their interpretation and explanation of those Scriptures -- in short, from their preaching.

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?

LOL! I like the color commentary in the set-up :) Anyway, well if that's what you meant, then what was your point in rhetorically asking "who would sleep with another man's wife" in the first place? I was just trying to derive what your point was. I still don't know.

How old are you?

I am thirty-something for 23 more days. :) or should that be :(

(By my comment, I just meant that I had plans. :)

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

"Oh brother" is right on point! :) The scriptures say that Jesus had named brothers, sisters, a named mother, and a father, all within two verses (Matt. 13:55-56). I understand that the plain meaning of these verses must be interpreted away by the Church to preserve Tradition. I would not even know how to argue that they "knew" each other, outside of scripture. That is, unless common sense counts as an argument. If common sense was an argument then it would also be my ally.

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 argument 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...

You think that's what Mary's response would be. Really? How many young women do you suppose expected angels to appear before them announcing a coming birth? Even if Mary was intimately familiar with scriptures she would know this was not an every day occurrence. I find it absolutely incredible that she would have reacted matter-of-factly. You don't appear to accept that the passage says she was afraid. I would have been too!

As I have said, if an angel appeared before me, my gut reaction would be that whatever the announcement was, would be happening sooner rather than at some indeterminate time in the future. IOW, why appear now to tell me this if you're talking about a year from now, or whatever? I would presume there would be a purpose to the timing.

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?

That's a fair question, and frankly, I really don't have a dog in this fight. If the Bible said anywhere that Mary was ever-virgin that would be fine with me. I don't know that it would challenge any of my other beliefs. However, I am always interested in learning more examples of when the words of scripture are suppressed in favor of a Traditional position. If I had never heard of this as an issue of contention and just read the scriptures, there would be no doubt in my mind that Jesus had blood siblings. And I claim that is a genuine statement because I don't need it to prove or support anything else. I don't "care" one way or the other. But the Church must care, so it must defend another interpretation that is contrary to the plain meaning of the words.

The KJV translators actually made much more use of the LXX readings to clarify Hebrew texts than do modern translations.)

Any proof of this?

The King James translators did have a high regard for the LXX (proof that it was a fraud came out a few years after the publication of the King James), but their primary reference was to the Masoratic Hebrew Text comparing various other translations, including the LXX (3rd century AD)

But I digress. This passage is one of those relatively rare examples of where the Textus Receptus does *not* follow the Byzantine majority Greek text -- and where there is no difference between the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts. The phrase "through his blood" is found only in a minority of manuscripts -- the majority of Byzantine miniscules do not contain it.

And like those other cases (Acts 8:37, 1Jn.5:7), the Latin preserved the correct reading.

You will note that the Majority Text compilers place this phrase in Colossians in parentheses -- indicating that it is *not* a Majority text reading, but one they feel it is important to include, whether from theological motivations, out of respect for the Vulgate/TR tradition, or because the reading is found in a sizable minority of Byzantine MSS.

The TR is not a majority text, it is the Received text one considered the pure text, put together by Erasmus, Stephenus, and Elizer (who coined the term) and Beza.

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. You certainly can't blame Jerome for it, as far as I can tell. I would guess that Jerome was using a variant Greek manuscript into which it had been inserted.

Jerome got this one right, like he did with 1Jn.5:7.

However, the Douey Rheims left the blood out despite it being in the Vulgate.

My guess is that the Jesuit Bible was just referring to a different Greek manuscript -- one that actually was in the majority tradition.

Yes, the Jesuits were following the textual tradition that rejects even the Vulgate if the Vulgate is correct.

The phrase would appear to have been inserted into Colossians (whether accidentally or intentionally) in order to parallel the wording in Ephesians 1:7. If the effect was to minimize the doctrine that is concerned, Ephesians 1:7 would have had to be doctored also -- and I am unaware of any textual tradition of that verse that does not contain "through his blood."

No one added anything, someone subtracted the blood.

Like they did in leaving out 1Jn.5:7.

Satan doesn't have to remove every correct verse, only enough to create doubt (Yea, hath God said?).

In any event, with or without the phrase, the theology is the same, since the phrase stands as is in Ephesians.

No, because the verse in Col.1:14 without the blood is incorrect, since there is no redemption without blood without shedding of blood is no remission (Heb.10:22)

Infants go to heaven That's not how the early Church saw it. Bishop Eusebius urged his parishoners to baptize as soon as posisble and not even wait for day 8 as the Jews did for circumcision.

Eusebius did not even believe in Orthodox view of the Trinity, so who cares what he believed in anything?

Now, since there was medical reason for waiting 8 days (production of vit. K that allows blood to congeal, is at its peak on the 8th day).

The circumcision did not save the infant.

No evidence that David circumcised his infant son who died, but who he knew he would see again (2Sam.12)

The reason why Limbo infantum even became a hypothesis of the Church is because the Church was not certain that unbaptized infants go to heaven. The current Catholic Catechism takes the patristic view shared with the Orthodox Church's unbroken tradition, that we do not know, but that we trust God's mercy.

Well that is a good thing to trust in, since water Baptism is a meaningless act on a child.

The infant is saved because of God's grace since the child has no sin imputed to him and is therefore under no condemnation (Rom.5:13).

He dies because he has an OSN, but he has not actual sins on his soul.

God is now free to impute Christ's righteousness to the infant so he is justified before God.

They are not accountable No they are not, but unbaptized infants are not Christians.

Baptized infants aren't Christians either! LOL!

What happens to unbpatized infants is beyond our knowledge or comprehension.

No, only the RCC have made it confusing by making infant baptism an issue for salvation when it isn't.

To suggest that the KJV is somehow insuperable would invalidate the nineteenth-century revision of it that we use since the KJV translators were long dead when our revised KJV was edited. And if we claimed that the 1611 was insuperable, we would have invested it with an authority equalling or exceeding the original monographs. Naturally, these positions are impossible to hold honestly. No translation is perfect as the KJV translators made perfectly clear in the Translator's Notes. But that is certainly not to say that all translations are equal.

The 'revisions' that were done, were not revisions of the text, but upgrading of the language and correction of printing errors.

Now, if you are going to claim imperfection of the King James, you should at least point out where it is in error.

The 'originals' are gone so they have no more authority over anything!

What we have for authority is the translation that came from those Originals.

Do you have any examples you would like to share with us, where the King James was in error? I am pretty certain I did not say it was in error. I'm surprised you would think that. I believe the KJV is the version that is less susceptible to doctrinal error than any other version in popular use by English-speaking peoples. And the role of scripture is to tell us an accurate history and to accurately convey the doctrine embedded in that scripture. No English bible has equalled it, IMO.

Well, if there are no errors, then it is a perfect translation.

The translators did not know they would produce the final English translation, but they did.

The King James Bible we have today is the same as the original 1611 with changes made in spelling and grammer but not the text itself.

You can buy an old Tyndale and one with modern spelling and they are both the same.

"The King James translators did have a high regard for the LXX"

That's all I was saying. There are any number of things that in the Hebrew are supposedly ambiguous, but that in the LXX are clear. A good example is the verse in Isaiah that most modern translations use "a young woman will conceive." The LXX is unequivocal -- "parthenos" cannot be translated in any way other than as a physical virgin. As familiar with the LXX as they were, they couldn't have helped but have it assist them in their translation of the Hebrew. It has always been my impression, although I've never made a study of it, that the KJV translators were more likely to look to the Greek to illuminate the Hebrew than they were to look to the Vulgate -- *even though the Vulgate was translated from Hebrew* (except for the Psalms, which remained translated from the Greek for the sake of liturgical familiarity and continuity with the Old Latin versions.)

With regard to the rest of your comments, you are certainly free to believe that the TR is the only true Greek text of the KJV (of course, then one must ask "which" TR edition...)

I am the first to say that it is certainly possible for a translation to contain more correct and original readings than does an original language text (otherwise we Orthodox wouldn't consider the LXX to be authoritative.)

I personally believe that in general, whatever the majority of Byzantine MSS say, that is the most likely reading. But then, I am Orthodox.

It seems that hard-line defenders of the TR want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to appeal to the fact that their favorite readings are, by and large, attested to by the vast majority of Greek manuscripts (i.e. miniscules of the Byzantine text-type), and yet, when that same standard leads to questioning a *very few* passages in the various TR family that is at variance with the majority Byzantine text, then suddenly a minority (even from a translated version) reading is just fine.

I certainly have never scratched out that phrase in Col 1:14 in any of my dozen or so copies of the KJV. It is correct theology, whether it is found only in Ephesians or both in Ephesians and Colossians. The fact that a majority of Greek manuscripts do not contain the "blood" phrase in Col 1:14 makes me inclined to think that it was added in the minority textual tradition -- but this cannot be definitively proven, any more than anyone can definitively prove that the majority Byzantine text represents an omission from the original reading.

If the statement "in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins" is incorrect theology, I'm missing something. In Romans 8:23 St. Paul talks about the redemption of the body, with nary a mention of blood anywhere in the passage. Does this mean that this passage is incorrect as well?

Again, I can respect a Protestant position that basically says that the TR is the result of inspired transmission, compilation, and editing. It is interesting that this inspired transmission came through many generations of Eastern Orthodox copyiests, through the compilation and editing of an unrepentant Catholic -- Erasmus, and includes selected Latin Vulgate readings where Erasmus preferred them.

But then as an Orthodox Christian, I have a very different take on the transmission of the texts, since those passing them on and copying them were of the same faith that we Orthodox hold today. Preservation is easy to believe in when one has confidence in the theology and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church doing the transmitting. Even with the Old Testament, we see ourselves in continuity with the Hebrew faith, and see the translation *by Jews* before the time of Christ of the OT into Greek as being the product of our same faith.

Preservation through generations of men who did not share your beliefs and who were, by your lights, misinterpreting the Bible grossly -- now that takes real faith, and I salute you for it!

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?

You would have the only evidence I use, the scriptures. Of course since the Church's interpretation of scriptures bears little resemblance to that of Protestants in general, then it is to be expected that you would not accept this as evidence. I'm afraid that's all I have, or need.

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?

I suppose that sometimes we do the same thing that you and the Orthodox did, part company with mutual respect. I believe that the Spirit brings along the elect at different rates and in different ways. This is what sanctification is for. If two Protestants are at different places in their respective walks, then it should not be any surprise that they would disagree on some things. I don't even think that is "bad", in and of itself. So for example, in no way does it defeat the Reformed view that I was wrong about OSAS. You have used the same argument in defending Catholicism in the face of actions taken by certain priests and bishops.

WHERE IS THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH? Deny it all you want, but it is in the Bible.

Oh, I know what the scripture says, but shockingly we disagree on the interpretation. :) I do not believe that the RCC is the pillar and foundation of truth because the Bible doesn't say that. The Bible talks about the Church of God, which could mean just that or it could refer to God Himself. Even if the former, we don't agree on what God's Church is.

Are you aware of how Christians came to the belief of the Trinity? Do you think the Scriptures alone told us?

I don't know who was the first to make a big deal about it, but I don't think it matters because the basis of the Trinity is fully in scripture. God the Father openly claimed to be God. So did the Son. Then we are told to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I'm sure there are plenty of cross-references that when all put together make it clear that the idea of the Trinity is absolutely Biblical. I do not believe that the Trinity is extra-Biblical Tradition.

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.

I don't agree that this is true, but even if it was, this is different from Catholicism HOW? :) "Oh, yes, well God gave all the power to the RCC to interpret scripture." [Really, when did He do that?] "Oh, well you see it's all clear in the Bible. We interpret that God gave us all the power, therefore it is so, etc."

Thus, Scriptures alone don't do much good by themselves.

No, I think they do perfectly by themselves, but you're right that correct interpretation is the key. Some Christians have an outside agenda that needs supporting, (thus tipping the scales on interpretation), and some do not.

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.

Actually, I never have, either on this thread or anywhere else. I suppose that it's possible that it will happen someday, but I'm not worried. Catholics and Orthodox don't agree on everything either. I don't see why it's a big deal. I don't feel obligated to defend all non-Catholics in the same way you should not feel obligated to defend all non-Protestants.

[continuing] And neither will ever know who REALLY is correct...

Boy do you have a gloomy outlook. :) I can only surmise that you do not believe that sanctification is real (at least for Protestants), or that people actually grow in their faiths during their lives. I suppose with a hierarchy that dictates all of your beliefs to you, there might not be much room to grow.

They did not have to look at the LXX, they could have looked at Matthew which defines what is meant in Isaiah.

With regard to the rest of your comments, you are certainly free to believe that the TR is the only true Greek text of the KJV (of course, then one must ask "which" TR edition...)

I believe the TR is the perfect line of the Greek Text.

Where the various editions differ, the correct reading is found in the King James Bible.

I am the first to say that it is certainly possible for a translation to contain more correct and original readings than does an original language text (otherwise we Orthodox wouldn't consider the LXX to be authoritative.)

Amen.

I personally believe that in general, whatever the majority of Byzantine MSS say, that is the most likely reading. But then, I am Orthodox.

Amen.

It seems that hard-line defenders of the TR want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to appeal to the fact that their favorite readings are, by and large, attested to by the vast majority of Greek manuscripts (i.e. miniscules of the Byzantine text-type), and yet, when that same standard leads to questioning a *very few* passages in the various TR family that is at variance with the majority Byzantine text, then suddenly a minority (even from a translated version) reading is just fine.

That is why I am not a TR man.

I am a King James man.

The TR is the stream from which the pure word of God flowed into the King James.

The translators picked from not only the TR, but many translations, the perfect reading.

I certainly have never scratched out that phrase in Col 1:14 in any of my dozen or so copies of the KJV. It is correct theology, whether it is found only in Ephesians or both in Ephesians and Colossians. The fact that a majority of Greek manuscripts do not contain the "blood" phrase in Col 1:14 makes me inclined to think that it was added in the minority textual tradition -- but this cannot be definitively proven, any more than anyone can definitively prove that the majority Byzantine text represents an omission from the original reading.

No, but that goes for all textual differences.

What has to be looked at is the reading itself and wheather one believes in Divine Preservation of the text.

If one does, then one is not going to accept the idea that textual errors were allowed to creep into the text.

Col.1:14 is an error and it contradicts Heb.9.

But Satan is always trying to get the blood out of the Bible, as did Cain when he rejected the blood offering. (Gen.4)

If the statement "in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins" is incorrect theology, I'm missing something. In Romans 8:23 St. Paul talks about the redemption of the body, with nary a mention of blood anywhere in the passage. Does this mean that this passage is incorrect as well?

That redemption is dealing with the Resurrection body, due to the blood redemption of the soul.(Rom.3:25)

('to wit the redemption of our body'8:23). Romans 8 is dealing with a saved man, not a lost one.

Again, I can respect a Protestant position that basically says that the TR is the result of inspired transmission, compilation, and editing. It is interesting that this inspired transmission came through many generations of Eastern Orthodox copyiests, through the compilation and editing of an unrepentant Catholic -- Erasmus, and includes selected Latin Vulgate readings where Erasmus preferred them.

Well, Erasmus was a Catholic who was very critical of the abuses of Rome and died among AnaBaptists.

He was a scholar of first rank and even though offered positions of power by the Papacy, he refused them all.

In fact, the saying that Tyndale used that a 'plowboy would know the scriptures better then the scholars'I think may have been originally said by Erasmus.

But then as an Orthodox Christian, I have a very different take on the transmission of the texts, since those passing them on and copying them were of the same faith that we Orthodox hold today. Preservation is easy to believe in when one has confidence in the theology and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church doing the transmitting. Even with the Old Testament, we see ourselves in continuity with the Hebrew faith, and see the translation *by Jews* before the time of Christ of the OT into Greek as being the product of our same faith.

The Jews that translated portions of the LXX into Greek were apostate.

The LXX we have today is the work of Origen.

Preservation through generations of men who did not share your beliefs and who were, by your lights, misinterpreting the Bible grossly -- now that takes real faith, and I salute you for it!

Well, thank you.

But the proof is in the pudding, as one may say, and the fruit that the TR translated bibles produced is clear proof that they were blessed by God.

Now, since there was medical reason for waiting 8 days (production of vit. K that allows blood to congeal, is at its peak on the 8th day)

Precisely. Eusebius was advising the believers not to follow Jewish practices because they were unrelated to baptism in the physicial sense.

No evidence that David circumcised his infant son who died, but who he knew he would see again (2Sam.12)

Of course he did. Jews believe in Shoel, or Hades, a place where all dead souls go, not just the righteous. You are interpreting Judaism of 1000 BC with Christian notions of heaven and hell. Way off the target, friend.

Well that is a good thing to trust in, since water Baptism is a meaningless act on a child

Meaningless? Did Jesus Christ say "Baptise adults in the name of the Father...?" I would rather "err" on the side of "meaningless" in this instance and leave the rest to God.

The infant is saved because of God's grace

And an adult is saved because of God's grace too ! -- regardless of how smart or Bible-read he or she is, or how much (s)he believes, or how charitable (s)he is. It's always God's grace, regardless.

God is now free to impute Christ's righteousness to the infant so he is justified before God

God is always free. He does not have to depend on our state of intellect to save our miserable souls, or on our "acceptance" of Him as believing adults.

Through baptism, we are adopted into Christ, not intellectually but mystically. We do not "adopt" God into us. God adopts us into Him. And, that, dear friend, does not depend on us at all. :)

Baptized infants aren't Christians either! LOL!

Christ commanded us to baptize everyone, and all people who are baptized are adopted into Christ, and are therefore Christians. Of course, if you grow up baptized but refuse God, do not repent as you continue in life, what good is your baptism going to be? It is not the intellect that makes baptism valid, but it is our faith that makes us stay baptized in Christ when we are old enough and willing to repent. Infants dont have to worry about staying in Christ once they are brought into Christ, because they cannot sin yet.

Your theology holds God's grace hostage by our intellectual ability to "accept" God when we are ready. It places our intellect over God, so that He "may" be free to bestow His grace upon us. Gees, that is really an upside-down theology.

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.