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.

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.

And neither has anything to do with salvation.

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.

Yes, the infant went to Abraham's bosom (Lk 16) the same place that saved David went.

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.

No infant was ever baptized in the NT.

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.

That's very nice, but for the adult it is through faith (Rom.10:17, Eph.2:8).

If you are depending on your infant Baptism or anything else but the shed Blood of Christ you are lost.

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.

Once again, God is free but He is bound by His own Holiness.

That is why He cannot save those who reject His free gift of salvation.

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. :)

No one has ever been saved by water Baptism.

Baptism is identification with God, but it cannot save.

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.

Water Baptism saves no one, infant or adult.

The Baptism that saves is a spiritual one, after one is saved and the Holy Spirit brings the believer into union with Christ (1Cor.12:13).

Water Baptism is a symbol of this fact. (2Pe.3)

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.

No, my theology is based on the words of God, words which God places above His own name (Ps.138:2)

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.

The point is that the Temple had given the young Mary to Joseph so as to protect her virginity. (by the way, Joseph was NOT rich, if you read the Protoevangelium, Mary's FATHER was "exceedingly rich" in the very first sentence). Mary was given to Joseph by lot. So who would have had sex with Mary, but an adulterer who was exceedingly wicked, knowing the history of Mary's virginity and being brought up in the Temple, and then given to Joseph to protect.

The scriptures say that Jesus had named brothers, sisters, a named mother, and a father, all within two verses

Without a further extensive re-visitation, Hebrew does not have a word for "cousin". ONLY one person is said to be the child of Mary. The Protoevangelium calls these other children of Joseph BEFORE Mary was given to Joseph by the Temple priests. The Scripture does NOT claim that Joseph and Mary had sex...

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!

I have no doubts she was afraid. But really, "how can this be" is not the answer one would give IF someone was intending on having sexual relationships soon...

If the Bible said anywhere that Mary was ever-virgin that would be fine with me

The Bible doesn't make a claim in either direction, so why argue against it? Oh, yea, because Catholics say it was so...

However, I am always interested in learning more examples of when the words of scripture are suppressed in favor of a Traditional position

Suppressed? What verse is suppressed as a result of saying Mary was ever-virgin? The explanation given are perfectly acceptable, ancient, and do not damage the Scriptures. You want something damaging to Scriptures? How about Sola Scriptura? How deep have you tried to twist that one, but yet produced nothing? Not a single bit of evidence...

Regards

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.

You miss my point... And this is very important.

Without the CHURCH'S interpretation, a final, decisive and dogmatic declaration, we would STILL be arguing over precisely the relationship between God the Father and the Son - and WHO is the Holy Spirit. If you read about the history of the Arian heresy (one where Jesus was not of the essence of the Father), Arius uses SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATIONS to advance his point - that Christ was a creation, not one of the persons of the Godhead (Trinity is not in the Bible).

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.

If you would like, I can advance the Arius point of view, strictly from the Bible. Without the Church's interpretation, you would not have a basis or a standard to come up with "Trinity", now, would you? This idea of WHO is God would be ANOTHER issue that Catholics and Protesters would disagree on. Fortunately, Protestants haven't totally put aside Catholic doctrines...

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.

What other Church do you think Paul was refering to? The Second Baptist Church in St. Paul, Minnesota?

"Oh, yes, well God gave all the power to the RCC to interpret scripture."

You certainly feel in a dramatic mood today, huh? The Church was given power to bind and loosen - which includes interpretating Scriptures, exactly what Jewish authorities did, as well. Are you upset that God didn't put you in charge?!

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.

Naturally, those who cannot live by their own standards, such as Sola Scriptura - by inventing Sola Fide as well as Sola Scriptura - do not have an agenda!!!

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.

After so much typing, you still don't know much about Catholicism, do you. Because there is authoritative power available to bind and loosen doesn't mean we don't think or grow. Sanctification is real, especially THROUGH the sacraments of the Church. It is the instrument that God has established to do just that. It is where we receive our daily bread, our forgiveness of sins from God. The correct interpretations of the teachings of the APOSTLES. I have a difficult time wondering why God established a Church that would totally destroy everthing Christ taught in less than 100 years - that is the argument of Protestantism that exceeds all other fantasies...

Regards

"...on what basis does man decide to accept God's gift of faith? Is it man-generated faith, as I have alleged? Or, is it rationalization and logic? Or, is it personal trust in a close friend who is a believer, etc.? If everyone has all the grace and information they need to accept Christ, then why does one man do it and another not do it? (This is ringing a bell for me, so maybe we've already covered this. Sorry, if true.)"

Faith is not man-generated, but man is not totally passive in his response to the gift of God. Does everyone have all the grace and information they need? Enough to condemn themselves or to accept the Law written on their hearts. God will judge man based on the knowledge that HE gives that man.

I do not believe man will be judged for salvation based on what he does.

I would further clarify that by noting that Scriptures have different definitions of "works". James says they ARE necessary - because he is refering to works of love, good deeds done with pure motive (of course, a gift from God). Paul talks about "works" where God now owes man a reward for obey the Law. Paul says nothing man can do makes God a debtor, thus, to Paul, this form of "work of the law" cannot save. Thus, I believe Protestants err by forcing ALL actions of man into Paul's definition of works, when the Scriptures clearly tell us that "faith [without works] cannot save".

The elect were selected before any of them were born, so what could they add or subtract from that based on anything they ever did? A Catholic is flexible on predestination and what part man has to do with this. We can take your view, the Thomist view, or we can take Molina's view that God forsees man's response. God's foresight does not mean God ordained it. Thus, God certainly can see man's response to His graces.

I believe that sometimes in the Bible, the reference to judgment is talking about rewards in heaven apart from salvation.

More often, much more, though, judgment of Christians is seen as either heaven or hell. This is the general context when deeds are mentioned in the case of judgment. For example, Revelation 20. One's love or lack thereof will determine whether one goes to heaven or hell. If the Bible even mentions such things ONCE, than Sola Fide is destroyed. On ALL occasions, our Lord makes it clear that judgment will separate the good from the evil, not the good from the better.

Regards

Uh-oh, you're getting a little close to Calvin there. The biblical accounts are true that God prepared certain individuals from the womb for their roles, that they were predestined to them. And yet, those individuals each chose of their own free will to love God, to serve Him and often to sacrifice their lives for Him. One sees this with John the Baptist and others. And it is just as true that God's plan requires that many who shall be saved will not come to Him for many years, some even in old age.

I agree and have amply defended free will. But at the same time, I must also defend God's predestination of people to grace. The Bible speaks of both truths - that man has free will and God expects man to respond to Him AND that God provides EVERY good grace necessary to whom He sees fit and chooses to use it. I have found, as St. Augustine had, that being in the middle of a point of view and arguing against one extreme often leads the other extreme to counter "heresy"! The Catholic Church continues to teach Predestination - both to grace and to glory - although it has NEVER taught double predestination (God actively predestining the reprobate to perdition)

When St. Augustine defended the Church vs. the Manicheaens, he used words emphasizing free will that the Pelagians would later use against him. St. Augustine then went the other extreme to defend the Catholic faith, using words and phrases that our Calvinist brothers have taken out of context!

Free will is an essential part of every human being and even for angels. It was an essential feature of Mary. And of Jesus himself as He accepted His role as Christ

I don't believe I denied that Mary had free will! I have pinged two "Calvinist" who can vouch for my belief in free will and my defense. But certainly, God can arrange things so that a person makes a free will choice. This "arrangement" can include that person's mental dispositions, his environment, and so forth. We as Catholics believe that God touches man through creation. Thus, He is certainly able to manipulate things so that the best choice would appear to be "x". The person has a free choice to make, but God, in the circumstances that He sees fit, can bring people to make the choice that God desires.

The Father is not interested in robots, it seems. We Calvinist types like to say that man's free will is not violated by God's unalterable and unfolding plan of creation. And man's free will does not diminish God's free will. It is merely that man's free will in this matter of predestination is fully enfolded in God's free will and his plan for the salvation of those He adopted as His children from the foundation of the world.

I haven't heard this argument before from Calvinists. After reading about TULIP, a Catholic can agree with some of it, although we would change the wording a bit. The first, Total Depravity, makes us cringe. But in essence, we agree with the concept, that man cannot come to God under his OWN power and requires grace from above. Where I have had problems here is pointing out man's cooperation - a gift from God, no doubt - but just the same, the Scriptures use the language of synergism.

Without full free will, neither Mary nor Jesus could be what scripture says they are.

I agree. Your explanation seems to properly balance man's free will with God's sovereign will without destroying either one.

Regards

An Orthodox Priest who I became acquainted with last summer and who is good enough to include me in emails to his flock, sent me the following today. I thought it was excellent, and it certainly spoke to me, thought it might speak to you too.

What the Teaching Can Teach Us
by William Varner | posted 05/22/2006 09:30 a.m.
Not all extracanonical manuscripts reveal a 'lost Christianity.'
The church's earliest discipleship manual—the Didache—is as orthodox and relevant as it gets.
The telephone call came just after we had finished our evening meal at the Knight's Palace Hotel in the Old City of Jerusalem in May 2005. The message instructed me to come now to the library of the Greek Orthodox patriarch if I wanted to see the manuscript. I changed my clothes quickly and scurried through the labyrinthine lanes of the Old City. After entering the Greek Orthodox monastery, I made my way to the library. Soon, the librarian delivered what I had waited years to see—a 950-year-old, 200-page manuscript containing, along with a dozen other early writings, a little work only 10 pages long. Its name is the Didache (the "Teaching," pronounced "didakhay"), short for The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. While no one believes that any of the twelve apostles wrote it, scholars agree that the work is a faithful transmission of the apostles' teaching, intended primarily for the training of Gentile believers.
Why do I have such an interest in this piece of parchment, the only manuscript copy known to exist? Although scholars fiercely debate many issues about the Teaching, most agree that it was written toward the end of the first century, by an anonymous author who probably lived in the area of Syria near Antioch. The Acts of the Apostles tells us that the believers were first called Christians in Antioch. This term also appears in the Teaching.
The fact that the Didache comes from such an early period of church history should make the Teaching of interest to every believer. But, while scholars have discussed the Teaching for years, the average Christian has virtually no knowledge of this little treasure, which can be found in The Apostolic Fathers in English (Baker, 2006) edited by Michael W. Holmes. That's too bad, because this earliest of church manuals contains some instructions that may help us to "do church" today.
A Primitive Simplicity
Let me disappoint any reader who is hoping to find in the Teaching evidence of a "lost Christianity" that will forever alter our understanding of the early church (like some Da Vinci Code conspiracy). The Teaching is thoroughly orthodox in its doctrine and, hence, from its discovery and subsequent publication in 1883, it has been included among the writings known as the Apostolic Fathers. But it is not just a simple repetition of information we already have in the New Testament. The initial point of the Teaching is that we should love God and others—taken from Deuteronomy 6:5 and from Jesus' command in Matthew 22:37-39. The Didache, however, adds a form of the Golden Rule familiar to Jewish readers: "Whatever you do not wish to happen to you, do not do to another." Ancient Jewish sources record the great rabbi Hillel expressing this idea in its negative form.
Other Jewish themes, adapted to a Christian context, abound in the book. Ethical behavior is commended in the form of "two ways," a theme adapted right from the Old Testament (see Ps. 1:1-6). The Lord's Prayer is to be offered three times a day, just like the time-honored Jewish practice (Ps. 55:17). The prayers accompanying the Lord's Table, or the Eucharist, are forms of a familiar Jewish prayer called the birkat hamazon offered at meal times. Unfortunately, most of our churches today know little about the Jewish roots of early Christianity. To return to our Jewish roots involves more than occasionally inviting a Jewish believer to speak in our pulpits.
The Teaching also can guide us regarding false teachers, and it does so in a surprising way. While it commends strongly the ministry of hospitality, it uses equally strong language for those teachers who prey upon the kindness of believers. It sets the limit on traveling teachers' stays in believers' homes at one or two nights. Also, in accord with Jesus' teaching, such traveling itinerants were to be compensated by meeting their physical needs. With a refreshing straightforwardness, however, the Didachist admonishes concerning guest teachers: "But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet." One wonders what the Didachist would say today if he could witness the tearful requests for monetary gifts that come from some of our modern day "prophets." And what would early Christians think of preachers today who demand a certain fee for preaching at a church or conference?
The Teaching contains some refreshing advice on church life and organization. Consistent with the New Testament, it advises congregations "to appoint for yourselves overseers and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are humble and not avaricious and true and approved, for they too carry out for you the ministry of the prophets and teachers." Many writers have noticed a "primitive simplicity" in the way that the Teaching describes the pastoral ministry in local assemblies. One finds in it no elaborate hierarchy of "bishops, priests, and deacons" such as developed in the second century.
The Didachist encourages believers to attend to their teacher's words, to gather on the first day of the week to observe a simple Eucharist, and to confess their sins before the assembly. When did you last hear someone honestly confessing his or her sins before the congregation? While such a practice could be open to abuse, why omit it altogether, especially when the New Testament also commends it (James 5:16)?
Not many evangelical churches observe the Eucharist weekly, but the Teaching prescribes a simple liturgy for weekly observance, using Old Testament "servant" terminology for the Lord Jesus (Isa. 53). The observance of this Eucharist was in the context of an entire meal, the standard practice of the early church until well into the second century. Why do so many churches today exchange something as important as this experience for a 10-minute ceremony, tacked onto an otherwise unaltered worship service, observed once a month at most? My liturgical brethren may have something on me with their weekly Eucharist. But can they honestly say that they are observing what both Jesus and the Teaching command?
The only other sacrament or ordinance that the Teaching recognizes is baptism. However, it settles no Baptist-Presbyterian controversies, since it allows baptism by either immersion or pouring, in either cold flowing water or warm still water. This handling of the mode of baptism reveals a compassionate pastoral genius.
How, Not Why
The passage about baptism contains the following opening clause, "After you have reviewed all these things, then baptize." The "things" that were to be reviewed are the six chapters of instruction that the Didachist had just given. They consist almost exclusively of practical instructions relevant to the life of a renewed person saved from the rampant vices of a pagan empire. Missing, however, is any detailed instruction in what we today call theology. I emphasized before that the Teaching is thoroughly orthodox in doctrine, with a high Christology and a clear affirmation of the Trinity. But mostly the Teaching describes the behavior that should characterize a new believer.
My perception is that the vast majority of instruction classes in our churches today deal primarily with what we are to believe, not how we are to obey. Perhaps the Teaching has something to offer us, when we find so many doctrinally orthodox believers struggling in their daily temptations, in their marriages, and in their practical Christian walks. Maybe a training program along the practical lines of the Teaching should replace the rote doctrinal rehearsals that characterize many of our classes for baptismal candidates.
Some churches today place a strong emphasis on eschatology and Bible prophecy. The New Testament also indicates that believers should be aware that they live in the "last days" (Heb. 1:2; 1 John 2:18). The lapse of a couple of generations since the birth of the church did not lessen that emphasis in the Teaching, which ends with an entire chapter devoted to eschatology. But if readers expect to find answers to all the prophetic puzzles and questions they have encountered, then they will be disappointed. Yes, the Antichrist is mentioned as the "world deceiver," but we get no clues as to who, specifically, the Antichrist will be. No clear indications of a sudden rapture are mentioned, but believers are warned that a fiery test is coming for them. No clear millennial position is advocated, but a resurrection for believers only is assumed. The book ends abruptly, with a reference to seeing the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven.
The Teaching's original readers did not need to be titillated by prophecy novels, but they did need to live holy lives in light of what lies ahead. Are we who are even closer to the coming of the Lord any different in our needs?
We often remark that we desire to minister like the early church. Well, here is a book that helps us better understand how to do just that.
William Varner teaches biblical studies and Greek at the Master's College in Santa Clarita, California. His book The Way of the Didache will be published in the fall by University Press of America.
The Didache on Taking Life
"You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery;" you shall not corrupt boys; you shall not be sexually promiscuous; "you shall not steal;" you shall not practice magic; you shall not engage in sorcery; you shall not abort a child nor commit infanticide (2:2).
The Didache on Baptism
Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: After you have reviewed all these things, baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times "in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit" (7:13).

This appeared in Christianity Today. Couldn't post a link for some reason, but following is their web address: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/006/13.30.html

So, you have to assign ulterior motives to Augustine in order to deny his scriptural teachings on sovereignty. As long as you admit it, fine with me. ; )

No, I am saying that people on the opposite extremes of the center point represented by Catholicism twisted St. Augustine's words for their own purposes. I am not saying that the saint had ulterior motives!

Well, maybe you didn't exactly. But the RC and Orthodox do seem to hold a view that Mary was not a normal human being even prior to her birth. This is my objection.

That's what we believe. God gave Mary a singular grace, making her the greatest of all creation, one who will be called blessed for all generations. We cannot honor Mary enough - but it is because of GOD, not what Mary did on her OWN.

When we start putting halos on people's heads or calling them saints and co-redemptrix, we have taken away from their humanity and their frailty as men and women. God's glory is diminished if we posit that He created special beings who do not face the same trials as the rest of us.

Not at all! We realize that God blessed Mary, but not to the degree that she no longer had free will or was a robot. We believe that creation is allowed to cooperate with God - to choose good or evil. God's glory is not diminished, rather, His magnanimousity is amplified. God is not in fear that someone will "take His glory". He lovingly allows man to cooperate in His ongoing works in creation, giving man a dignity above any other visible creation. We highly venerate Mary for her life and her choices, and we love God all the more for giving us such a wonderful creation that totally committed herself in humility and obedience to the Word of God.

Mary did face a number of trials. I do not believe that she had supernatural knowledge. Certainly, choosing to bear child while not married yet subjected her to possible stoning. And whose sorrow exceeds that of the Dolorous Virgin, watching her Son die on a cross, knowing it was God's Will be done and probably not knowing why? No, Mary certainly suffered - a sword pierced her heart, too, at Calvary.

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.