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.

Sure, if we can choose to sin, it follows that we can choose not to sin. Therefore, between two saved people, the one who chooses to sin "less" might very well have a greater reward in heaven.

An interesting admission... I would agree with everything you wrote above.

Man's justice says it is perfectly fine for a woman to murder her baby

That's not man's justice, that's just the stupid Supreme Court and 7 people making that decision. The majority of people do not agree with that decision of Roe vs. Wade. I agree with what you are saying, BUT, we are still talking oranges and apples here. God exceeds our idea of justice, correct? Thus, the parable of the late day laborers who receive the same wages. Which man would give these men the same wages as the ones who showed up at daybreak? That is what God's justice is...it EXCEEDS ours.

I don't have anything new, just the same boatload of assurance verses that Catholicism either rejects or interprets beyond all recognition.

And what about the "boatload of verses of those who fall away?

What is this about angels selecting who is the wheat?

They are the ones gathering the wheat, are they not?

I do believe that God's Church comes from God. However, I saw nothing in 1 John 1:1-4 that implied that Popes can make infallible declarations from God, or that a priest today can forgive sins.

Been there, done that... Heck, you still think that faith alone saves, even though the Bible says it doesn't. So what sort of evidence would I need to convince you of the above???!!!

Regards

Come to think of it, jo, your question is wrong: you are confusing nature (essence, ousia) with God's uncreated energies. In the case of our Lord Jesus Christ we have a union, without confusion, of two natures: that of Jesus (human) and Christ (divine), each possessing fully its own energies, human and divine.

As far as I can tell so far, an energy is the action of a being, correct? According to this Orthodox concept (which I admit know very little about, I am still struggling to understand it - forgive me, Westerners are slow!) Now, the Orthodox say that man cannot contact the Essence (nature) of God Himself, much like Platoism said, thus, necessitating the Logos. And thus, we have the Incarnate Logos, the Mediator between God and man. But yet, the Bible tells us that Jesus Himself comes into our hearts, along with the Spirit. Is the Essence present among us, or only a Divine Energy? Is this Energy God Himself? I am thoroughly confused on the distinction between Energy and Essence by the three of you so far!

I am sorry, forgive me, I was not raised on this point of view on God, so I am having a hard time understanding the distinction that the Orthodox make between God's Essence and God's Uncreated Energy. In the West, we see God's Energy as Created, and call it Sanctifying Grace. Both God and His Grace comes to men. How does this all work in the East.

I am just curious and trying to learn your point of view better.

The very fact that the Church established Orthodox Christology based on two natures of Christ, and two wills or energies

Is the uncreated energy the Divine Will?

Regards

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 _______?"

I believe that God wrote His work through the Apostles, so there was no vacuum. Of course there was preaching and teaching all along from the Apostles. It is perfectly reasonable for an Apostle to interpret his own writings. One problem is that those interpretations can then be reinterpreted and reinterpreted ad infinitum all the way up until today. I just don't necessarily believe in those reinterpretations based on just the say so of the reinterpreter.

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 referring to other Scriptures, with the Holy Spirit to guide you."??

I see it as interesting that the Church is perfectly happy with Apostles interpreting what they wrote in scripture, but on the thought that God Himself might interpret His own inspired word through other scripture, this idea is wholly unacceptable. Jesus interpreted His own words within scripture in a parable. However, "God" is barred from doing the same thing by the Church.

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.

What do you require for controversy? Several of the early Fathers wrote things that were rejected by the majority of the Church, some of which would be accepted by today's Protestants. Since they were summarily dismissed at the time, the claim is "no controversy". Sometimes it seems that the standard is that if the Reformation was legitimate it would have happened right away. I don't agree with this.

The Church DOES indoctrinate. To my knowledge, dissenting views were not welcomed or encouraged, even to the point of not allowing people to read the Bible because of the threat it posed to the interpretation of the Church. It doesn't make sense to me that any hierarchy that is right should be so afraid of its own members reading their own defining written work. It doesn't appear to me that the early years were particularly an era of "free thinking". Conformism was and is the rule of the day, and why not? It was/is an efficient system. If there is no disagreement, there are no problems.

I think it took all that time before the pressure cooker blew. I don't believe the Reformation just "happened" overnight. It was a gradual process that reached a zenith when it did.

If these things [mainly extra-scriptural Traditional practices] 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.

That is certainly possible. I'm not sure exactly when or how these types of practices got started. And I don't know if anything could have really been done about it at the time or not. I know that the Jews executed blasphemers, and the Apostolic Church has also done the same, but I'm not sure what the practice was in the early years. (I know that Protestants have also done some unfortunate things, so I didn't mean to make it sound one way. I'm just not sure if the early Church handled such dissension the same way the Jews did.)

And that reminds me, at the time of Jesus, it appears that the then version of "God's Church" was fairly corrupt. Jesus came and righted the ship, but it does show that just being in charge does not make a hierarchy correct. All humans are still fallible.

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! :-)

Unless the penalty was as above. Ouch! :) Even the threat of excommunication, I would imagine, would be plenty enough to quash much dissent. I don't think it's "unfair" for the Church to want to rid itself of dissenters for the legitimate purpose of unity. But if one had been born and raised into an Apostolic faith, then I can imagine it being pretty tough to work up the moxie to publicly dissent.

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).

I fully agree that Joseph was not rich. That is shown by the sacrifice of the doves after Jesus is born. And the Protoevangelium does indeed say that Mary's family was wealthy. I was alluding to the arguments of some others here that one reason for the marriage was so that Joseph could take care of Mary financially. If anything, the opposite would have been true. BTW, if Joseph was so old, (too old to have sex, apparently ) what was Mary supposed to do to protect her virginity after he died? It doesn't seem like much of a plan to me if he already had one foot in the grave.

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.

The same ones we are talking about in Matt. 13. Those verses are destroyed in their meaning in order to support the Protoevangelium, a work judged unworthy of inclusion in the Bible. The Protoevangelium and the text of the scripture CANNOT both be true, therefore one side must be suppressed. As is always the case, the Bible takes a back seat to Tradition. Not only that, this suppression also throws into potential doubt the authorship of up to two books in the NT, James and Jude. So this is no small matter to protect an extra-scriptural work.

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.

That could very well be true. At least it goes to show that I do not think all extra-scriptural Tradition is automatically wrong. :)

If you would like, I can advance the Arius point of view, strictly from the Bible.

If it wouldn't be any trouble, I would be curious to hear it.

The Church was given power to bind and loosen - which includes interpreting Scriptures, exactly what Jewish authorities did, as well. Are you upset that God didn't put you in charge?!

And look at what a stellar job the Jewish authorities did at it! :) I'm not upset that I'm not in charge. I should give thanks to God every day that I am not. :) I only get upset when there's any suggestion that God is not in charge.

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!!!

In terms of agreeing with the text of the Bible, I would put Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura up against extra-scriptural Tradition any day of the week. That would be an interesting test, say, to find 100 very bright people who have absolutely zero knowledge of Christianity in any form. Then, have each one of them read the whole Bible. Next, on certain preselected issues, present the two views of Catholicism and of the Reformed Protestants. Finally, ask them to vote on each issue as to which view more closely matches what they read in scripture. I could be wrong, but I don't think it would even be close.

Sanctification is real, especially THROUGH the sacraments of the Church.

I thought for sure you believed that, it just didn't sound like it from your prior post. I even "think" you believe that sanctification is really a part of justification, that sanctification has to do with final salvation.

I have a difficult time wondering why God established a Church that would totally destroy everything Christ taught in less than 100 years - that is the argument of Protestantism that exceeds all other fantasies...

Oh, it's not that bad, we just talked about the Trinity, right? :) My belief IS that the Church strayed, but it's not a fantasy, it's a mystery. Why would God create men just so they could continually turn their back against Him after He only loves them and bestows blessings? I don't know. The Bible is absolutely packed with examples of men being put into power, only for bad things to result. This does not mean "THEREFORE" the Catholic Church is wrong, it just means I don't think they are any more insulated against error than anyone else. (Of course this view is predicated on my belief that God's Church and the RCC are not one and the same.)

I would further clarify that by noting that Scriptures have different definitions of "works". James says they ARE necessary - because he is referring 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.

That sounds like a pretty good distinction between the approaches of James and Paul. That one has troubled me before. :)

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".

Well, why wouldn't our idea of Perseverance of the Saints coupled with Eph. 2:8-9 solve for both views above? I consider the "perseverance" part as a future included event to the original grace of salvation. Therefore, the two Solas survive.

Imagine Albert Pujols, of the 2006 World Champion St. Louis Cardinals, was at the plate and blasted a 400-footer into left center. :) He uncharacteristically stops to watch it before he starts running. The ball clears the fence. Has he hit a home run? I would say "YES", even though technically, in order to be an official home run, he still must "choose" to run all the bases and touch home plate. The running of the bases is a future included event of something that is REALLY already done. I think Catholics would differ and say "NO", it is not a done deal, because anything could happen to Pujols on his way around the bases, or he might just choose to run into the stands for whatever reason and forfeit his home run. I would say that my belief in being one of the elect is similar to my confidence that Albert is going to dutifully trot around those bases. How do you see it?

More often, much more, though, judgment of Christians is seen as either heaven or hell.

I really don't know about "more" or "less", but it is absolutely undeniable that "judgment" as used in the Bible as referring to either heaven or hell is all over scripture.

Actually, I don't think I was evading anything, but I did notice that you evaded (perhaps unintentionally) my question of whether you would have brought your little child to Christ to be blessed.

Far from evading anything, I was simply demonstrating an aspect of the Gospels where children were receiving grace from Christ that they didn't understand. Which, from an Orthodox point of view, is the real question about whether children should receive baptism, chrismation, and Holy Communion.

You are correct that Scripture doesn't explicitly say that infants were baptized at that time -- it is silent, but you already know the references that are used to show that it may be implied. I won't repeat them.

The Church was very different in the early years, in that the focus was on the conversion of adults. We believe that with the onset of families coming into the Church, all were baptized in many cases, but I can't prove that.

I would also point out that the only practice that is criticized in the patristic writings (although sometimes it is also recommended) is the practice of waiting a long time for baptism -- even at one's deathbed (such as the Emperor St. Constantine) out of concern that this was one's only shot at a full forgiveness of sins.

It has been said that part of St. Constantine's motivation not to formally join the Church that he promoted so vigorously and studied arduously, was that he felt that as emperor, he had to do so many things that were dangerous to the soul: execute and imprison people, kill people by waging war, etc...

My point is that while there was controversy about how long one waited, there is no record of any controversy about the baptism of infants. Again, this is a passive witness, not an active one, even if you were inclined to look at history as a useful tool in understanding the Apostolic practice.

Baptists are being consistent in their practice of adult baptism only if the criterion is whether it is explicitly spelled out in Scripture.

I would ask, though, that you take every other aspect of Baptist practice and mentally apply the same criterion. Imagine things about how you worship and live the Christian life, that if you were to change them, people would raise a ruckus -- and then try to find whether they are explicitly spelled out in the NT in the life of the Church.

Maybe you have a practice of people coming forward and kneeling at the front of the church -- is that in the Bible? Is having a specific church building at all in the Bible? Are having crosses on steeples in the Bible? Are having rows of pews in the Bible? Is having a pulpit in the Bible?

Is there a single instance of someone leading another person in a "sinner's prayer" in the Bible? By your criteria, if it isn't explicitly spelled out in the Bible, it shouldn't be done. Given the centrality in most fundamentalist practices of leading someone in the sinner's prayer -- it is the defining moment of when someone was saved -- wouldn't the NT look much different, and have some explicit examples of this being done? I think you get my drift. We all have traditions, and practices not explicitly spelled out in the Scriptures -- we just don't all recognize them as such.

"I believe that God wrote His work through the Apostles, so there was no vacuum. Of course there was preaching and teaching all along from the Apostles. It is perfectly reasonable for an Apostle to interpret his own writings."

And....? Wouldn't their interpretations that they did through their extensive preaching throughout the known world have held the day? Wouldn't these understandings of Scripture have been carefully passed on to every new Christian and every new generation?

"...but on the thought that God Himself might interpret His own inspired word through other scripture, this idea is wholly unacceptable."

Not true. The model that we have before us has always been one of using Scripture to understand Scripture. It is in the prophets regarding the Pentateuch, it is in the NT regarding the OT, and it is in the Fathers everywhere -- correlating, comparing, harmonizing, enlightening.

Goodness, after following the content of some of my friendly verbal duels with Kosta regarding OT - NT continuity, you should know that about the patristic approach.

God is not barred from doing anything -- I don't know where you get that idea. The Church passes on what it understands to be the Apostolic teaching -- what else should it have done?

"What do you require for controversy? Several of the early Fathers wrote things that were rejected by the majority of the Church, some of which would be accepted by today's Protestants."

All along, we do not accept the writings or teachings of any one man -- I would hope you would agree with that approach. What I am looking for is evidence that there was an active movement combating the things about Orthodoxy that modern Protestantism rejects. Could you choose one of the Fathers you mention, looking at his writings as a whole, and say that his faith was fundamentally the same as yours -- i.e. could you say, "this guy is one of ours?"

If the faith of the Apostles had any staying power, and if their faith was the same as that of Protestantism, I think we would find evidence for it in the early centuries. The Mormon explanation for this phenomenon is that immediately after the Apostles, God removed grace from the earth until there was a more fitting time for it. Protestantism has never made an historical case for the existence of their distinctives in the early centuries.

"The Church DOES indoctrinate. To my knowledge, dissenting views were not welcomed or encouraged..."

In other words, Christianity was hijacked extremely early (maybe in the first generation after the Apostles) by men of false views and practices.

"even to the point of not allowing people to read the Bible because of the threat it posed to the interpretation of the Church."

Maybe true of medieval Catholicism, but not true at any time in the undivided Church or in the Orthodox Church. St. John Chrysostom -- Patriarch of Constantinople and a model bishop to us Orthodox, writing in the 4th century at a time of turmoil and controversy with Arians said these things that I jotted down in my journal (forgive the excessive abbreviation -- I only wrote down the key phrases):

"Hearken ye, as many as are [living in the world], and have the charge of wife and children, how to you too he {St. Paul, that is -- St. John is here preaching on Colossians} commits especially the reading of the Scripures...

...Procure books that will be medicines for the soul. If ye will not any other, yet get you at least the New Testament... for your constant teachers.

This is the cause of all evils, the not knowing the Scriptures."

Do you approve? Does that sound like the banning of Scripture? I would also point out that in those days, having writings in one's home involved great expense, since books had to be copied by hand.

Keep also in mind that these were formative years -- there were still controversies and heresies. The practices of the day were furthermore certainly by the 4th century ones that you would believe to be as seriously wrong as you believe us Orthodox to be today. There is no evidence that anyone tried to suppress the reading of Scripture. On the contrary, we have the most prominent preacher of the day urging his faithful to read the Scriptures to their families in their own homes. Yet no Reformation happened.

"And that reminds me, at the time of Jesus, it appears that the then version of "God's Church" was fairly corrupt."

That is true. It it the history of the Church, from the time it was established outside the gates of the Garden of Eden, that there have been fallings away, remnants, and calls to repentance and a return to the true faith. It is all through the OT. We Orthodox can certainly point to our own history and show many, many times of people's hearts growing cold, followed by revivals and flowering of belief and piety. This is a fact of human existence.

At the time of Christ, the officials in charge of the Hebrew religion were certainly corrupt.

But implicit in that is my original question: doesn't it seem funny that over the period of 1500 years, that there is no record of visible and organized churches that held Protestant beliefs until the Reformation itself? Basically, by Protestant standards, the official Jewish religion was corrupt, Christ came and reformed it (so to speak),then *that* Christian church became corrupt and full of false beliefs and practices within a century or two, it remained corrupt and full of false beliefs and practices for 15 centuries, then the Reformation happened, and true Protestant Christianity has been active and visible and growing ever since.

What went wrong? Why were the Refomers able to start a Christian movement that lasted and expanded to cover the globe, while Christ and the Apostles couldn't?

"Is this Energy God Himself?"

As Kosta pointed out on a similar matter, I would submit that you are asking the wrong question.

As I pointed out above, it seems to me that you are trying to "get behind" the energies and nature of God to find the "real God" -- and then ask how to find union with that essence.

What I have tried to express (probably poorly) is that you cannot separate God's energies, will, nature, persons, and essence -- and say that this part is really God, and that part isn't.

You cannot separate the energies of God from his essence, and then say that participation in them is not a full participation in the life of God. Nor can you say that because participation in the divine energies is a "partaking of the divine nature" that therefore the energies must be God Himself.

What Kosta points out is very apt -- even in Christ, there is not a mingling or fusion of divine and human natures or energies (and I would add wills, as per the 6th Council). The 6th Council said that Christ's human will was distinct from his divine will, but that his human will was in perfect conformity with the divine will. They were shown to be distinct in the garden of Gethsemane, but they were in perfect conformity.

I'm sure that something has been written on the human and divine energies in the person of Christ, but I would imagine that it would be similar to that. Furthermore, Christ's human nature participated in the divine energies to the fullest extent that is possible -- in a sense, it is the limit to which we humans can approach, but presumably never reach.

Actually, I don't think I was evading anything, but I did notice that you evaded (perhaps unintentionally) my question of whether you would have brought your little child to Christ to be blessed.

Yes. I thought you were posing a rhetorical question.

Far from evading anything, I was simply demonstrating an aspect of the Gospels where children were receiving grace from Christ that they didn't understand.

Receiving a blessing is not the same as receiving grace. I like to think that those children later were saved, that they became stalwarts of the early church. But we have no indication of this.

The Church was very different in the early years, in that the focus was on the conversion of adults. We believe that with the onset of families coming into the Church, all were baptized in many cases, but I can't prove that.

Honest enough.

I would also point out that the only practice that is criticized in the patristic writings (although sometimes it is also recommended) is the practice of waiting a long time for baptism -- even at one's deathbed (such as the Emperor St. Constantine) out of concern that this was one's only shot at a full forgiveness of sins.

But it was long after the time of Christ and the apostles that we see deathbed baptisms and infant baptisms. From Wikipedia which seems pretty neutral in its overview:

Scholars from the traditions that practice infant baptism contend that indirect evidence for baptizing children exists within the New Testament. They cite occasions from the Book of Acts when whole households were baptized, in the words "The promise is for you and for your children." Advocates of believers's baptism counter that such passages do not necessarily include infants and young children.
The earliest extra-biblical reference to baptism occurs in the Didache (c. 100 A.D.), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 130 A.D.), and the Shepherd of Hermas (c. 150 A.D.). Some scholars argue that all of these works describe the practices surrounding baptism in ways that imply it is adults that are baptized. The Didache, for example, directs that candidates for baptism be instructed and fast for two days:

"Concerning baptism, baptize thus: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. ... Before a baptism, let him who baptizes and him who is baptized fast, and any others who may be able to do so. And command him who is baptized to fast one or two days beforehand"^[1]

The proponents of infant baptism counter that these passages illustrated adult baptism but do not exclude infant baptism. They also point to discussions of infant salvation in the first three centuries and the observations of later writers that infant baptism was the tradition of the church strongly suggests that the practice was established in the earliest days of church history.
The earliest uncontested historical record of infant baptism is recorded in the works of Origen (185-254 A.D.):

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin... In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous."^[2]

From the 3rd century until the 16th century, infant baptism was practised by almost all Christian churches. In the 16th century the Anabaptists challenged the biblical warrant for this practice, starting the debate between pedobaptism and credobaptism which continues to be a source of disagreement between Christians.

If we observe the Didache, it seems unlikely that infants were instructed in scripture and doctrine or that they fasted for two days prior to their splashings by clergy. Given how widespread the Didache was among Christians at that time, it is most peculiar that it makes no mention or provision for baby-splashing.

My point is that while there was controversy about how long one waited, there is no record of any controversy about the baptism of infants. Again, this is a passive witness, not an active one, even if you were inclined to look at history as a useful tool in understanding the Apostolic practice.

There are a great many practices of the early church as well as more modern churches which would not be forbidden by this standard. Yet, you Orthodox would no more approve them than would a Baptist. This isn't really a serious argument, IMO.

Baptists are being consistent in their practice of adult baptism only if the criterion is whether it is explicitly spelled out in Scripture. I would ask, though, that you take every other aspect of Baptist practice and mentally apply the same criterion. Imagine things about how you worship and live the Christian life, that if you were to change them, people would raise a ruckus -- and then try to find whether they are explicitly spelled out in the NT in the life of the Church.

Baptists do a pretty good job at being literal and observing New Testament practice. When we exceed that simple faith, we do generally note it and observe that it is not biblical. For instance, many local Baptists are installing e-Sword software to aid in bible study. It's not forbidden nor advocated in scripture. Yet, would a novelty in scripture study that aids the ordinary Christian in study be contrary to the Word? No. And it would uphold scripture's injunction to study the Word and use it as the litmus of our worship practice and spiritual life.

Maybe you have a practice of people coming forward and kneeling at the front of the church -- is that in the Bible? Is having a specific church building at all in the Bible? Are having crosses on steeples in the Bible? Are having rows of pews in the Bible? Is having a pulpit in the Bible?

Is there a single instance of someone leading another person in a "sinner's prayer" in the Bible? By your criteria, if it isn't explicitly spelled out in the Bible, it shouldn't be done. Given the centrality in most fundamentalist practices of leading someone in the sinner's prayer -- it is the defining moment of when someone was saved -- wouldn't the NT look much different, and have some explicit examples of this being done?

Coming forward is considered a bit suspect in some Baptist churches. Many Baptist churches are house churches. Many Baptist churches have no steeple or cross. As for leading someone in the sinner's prayer (Romans Road to Salvation), it seems a sound practice in that it is an orthodox confession of sin and proper doctrine, one which I doubt the Orthodox would find controversial in the slightest. And the use of scripture to confess one's sin and need of a Savior is by no means controversial. Given that Baptists are so closely wed to scripture (being otherwise deliberately impoverished), to take a new convert directly for scripture for doctrine and the form of prayer is hardly unscriptural. Baptists are very much wed to scripture and this is a fitting start in a Baptist's Christian life.

There is a difference between following scripture and recognizing that many practices were not recorded in scripture because they had not yet been written at the time of the events depicted in scripture. Yet, Baptists adhere to a broad method of preaching the Word, just as exampled in scripture by the apostles and early Christians. If you think about it, I think you'll see why Baptists are unlikely to overthrow the preaching of and use of Romans Road To Salvation simply because Paul hadn't yet written it at the time the events of the Gospels occurred or, later, were recorded.

Actually, Didache is dated anywhere from 60 to 100 AD, and there are some other "inconsitencies" in the way the authors of that work worshiped as compared to "standard" praxis. One that comes to mind is the fact that Didache does not mention Real Presence, and also reverses the order of Eucharitic reception, more in line with the Judaic practice: wine first, then bread.

Didache is by no means a Church-wide dogma. It probably reflected the practices of some Jewish Christians at the time when the Apostles still walked the earth and were busy writing Gospels.

Can we assume that simply because Didache does not mention anything about infant baptisms that other communities didn't practice baptisms of entire families, as there is evidence to that effect?

Didache may be an insight but by no means a "Bible." Children were not really much of a subject in those days unless they were children of kings, or were the targets of someone's slaughter, and even then the records if often lacking. In other words, chlidren were not given the important role of decision making, but simply followed what their parents did.

You will also notice in the quote that it says "let him who baptizes and him who is baptized fast, and any others who may be able to do so" but it doesn't say that those who may not be able to do so cannot be baptized! Obviously, children were not expected to fast, as they are not expected now.

Is the Essence present among us, or only a Divine Energy? Is this Energy God Himself? I am thoroughly confused on the distinction between Energy and Essence by the three of you so far! I am sorry, forgive me, I was not raised on this point of view on God

Jo, there is no need to apologize. I believe that this is much simpler than you think. God created us in His image and likeness, in other words in resemblance of Him. We can potentially be like Him, but we can never be Him.

I am sure you know that. I am also sure that you know that God is a Spirit, ineffable, invisible, uncircumscribed, transcendental, and that we are nothing like that. We can become good (by cleaving to God), but God is Goodness. We may be merciful, but He is Mercy. We may be just, but His is Justice. God is the essence of everything we consider virtuous in us, because He is Virtue.

Is God present in us? He is present in everything; every thing that exists is a manifestation of God, for we exist because of Him and without Him we have no existence on our own.

So, if we can't see Him, how do we know who He is, or whether He is? The answer is through His energies. Through them, He makes Himself "detectable" by us; through them He communicates with us, through revelations and visions. Through His energies, we are moved to virtue. Through His energies we become like Him (theosis), but we never, ever, become Him.

For if we are to become Him, he would cease to be uncreated eternal God and we would cease to be created likeness of Him. Each one of us would become another Hypostasis, distinct, yet equally divine, sharing the same Essence (ousia) with the other Hypostases of which there would be as many as there are saved souls. That wold be pantheism. That wold be Hollywood!

St Basil the Great (4th century) writes: "We know our God from His energies, but we do not claim that we can draw near His essence." (Basil, Letter 234) This shows clearly that St. Gregory Palamas did not "invent" something new in Orthodox theology ten centuries (1,000 years!) later, but simply re-affirmed the patristic faith the East never altered.

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.