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.

" St. John Chrysostomos writes:

"The soul is of course a creation of God, but it is incorporeal, rational and immortal." (John Chrysotsomos, On the Statues, Homily 11,2 PG 49,122. On I Corinthians, Homily 39,3 PG 61,335. On Genesis, Homily 13,1 PG 53, 106f)

and St. Gregory Palamas says the following:

"The soul of each man is also the life of the body that it animates...Yet the soul has life not as an activity [as animals do] but also as its essence, since it is self-existent; for it possesses a spiritual and noetic life that is evidently different from the body's...Hence when the body dissolves the human soul does not perish with it but it continues to exist immortally, since it is not manifest only in relation to something else, but possesses its own life as its essence. (St. Gregory Palamas, Philokalia, "Topics of Natural Science and Theological Science", #32).

Summarizing the Orthodox view:

The "immortality of the soul is not a natural attribute; it is a gift of the grace of God." ("Free Will and Death, Orthodoxinfo.com)"

This is exactly what I have been taught and have always believed. When I first came across this idea that the soul is not immortal, in Kalomiras I think, I was astonished. Perhaps the snip from Orthodoxinfo, not my favorite source nor one which I find particularly reliable given its pedigree, explains this idea, namely that the soul being created is not naturally immortal, but rather immortal as a gift of God. I don't find that very satisfying at all. On the other hand, the Fathers speak continually about a spiritual death, which would seem to fly in the face of spiritual imortality on the surface of things. That said, even that is far too simplistic. It seems to me that spiritual death is separation from God while "immortality" is everlasting life with God. But in both instances, there is no end to the state we put ourselves in.

A, maybe you can explain this "the soul is not immortal" concept in a way my simple peasant mind can understand. :)

And instead of going to the clear teaching of the Bible on justification by faith alone (Rom.4:5, Eph.2:9, Tit.3:5) you will run to the parables! Well, I had enjoyed your post on the sheep and the goats until this... Apparently, Christians had to wait for St. Paul to give the "real" Gospel...

No, but the Gospel of Grace is different then then three other Gospel messages preached, The Gospel of the Kingdom, the everlasting Gospel and the false Gospel that Satan uses to hide the truth.

Even from Paul alone, I can show that Paul does not teach "faith alone". Throw in Peter, John, James, and Jesus, the argument is over before it begins...

No, Paul does teach that a man is only saved by faith alone.

Works come after salvation to show that one is saved, it doesn't add anything to salvation that already has been acomplished.

Ye shall know them by their fruits (Matt.7:16).

The root (salvation) produces the tree which shows the fruit.

The fruit does not produce or aid the root.

You want a clue? Look to Romans 4:4, one verse removed from one you cited. That will explain what "works" mean to Paul. It is something done for pay. Nothing we do earns anything. Salvation is not earned. But Paul STILL commands we obey Christ. You misunderstand "doing something out of love" with "doing something for pay".

And what part of Rom.4:5 and Eph.2:9 do you not understand as it relates to salvation?

Rom.4:4 speaks of the fact that if one can do something for his salvation he can claim a debt owed, but salvation is a free gift and cannot be earned.

A Christian is supposed to do good works (so stop attempting to set up a straw man, as if we are arguing against good works), but the good works cannot add anything to salvation, they only show that one is saved.

If the person stops producing good works, that faith is dead and God will deal with it discipline and even death.

But, since he is a new creature in Christ, he will still be saved, he will lose any rewards that he might have had at the judgement seat of Christ (Rom.14:10, 2Cor.5:10, 1Cor.3:13-15)

Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Tit.3:5)

gospel Gospel. This great theme may be summarized as follows:

I. In itself the word Gospel means good news.

II. Four forms of the Gospel are to be distinguished"

(1) The Gospel of the kingdom. This is the good news that God purposes to set up on the earth, in fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant 2 Samuel 7:16 a kingdom, political, spiritual, Israelitish, universal, over which God's Son, David's heir, shall be King, and which shall be, for one thousand years, the manifestation of the righteousness of God in human affairs. (See Scofield "Matthew 3:2") .

Two preachings of this Gospel are mentioned, one past, beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist, continued by our Lord and His disciples, and ending with the Jewis rejection of the King. The other is yet future Matthew 24:14 during the great tribulation, and immediately preceding the coming of the King in glory.

(2) The Gospel of the grace of God. This is the good news that Jesus Christ, the rejected King, has died on the cross for the sins of the world, that He was raised from the dead for our justification, and that by Him all that believe are justified from all things. This form of the Gospel is described in many ways. It is the Gospel "of God" Romans 1:1 because it originates in His love; "of Christ" 2 Corinthians 10:14 because it flows from His sacrifice, and because He is the alone Object of Gospel faith; of the "grace of God" Acts 20:24 because it saves those whom the law curses; of "the glory" ; 1 Timothy 1:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4 because it concerns Him who is in the glory, and who is bringing the many sons to glory Hebrews 2:10 of "our salvation" Ephesians 1:13 because it is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth" Romans 1:16 of "the uncircumcision" Galatians 2:7 because it saves wholly apart from forms and ordinances of "peace" Ephesians 6:15 because through Christ it makes peace between the sinner and God, and imparts inward peace.

(3) The everlasting Gospel Revelation 14:6. This is to be preached to the earth-dwellers at the very end of the great tribulation and immediately preceding the judgment of the nations Matthew 15:31. It is neither the Gospel of the kingdom, nor of grace. Though its burden is judgment, not salvation, it is good news to Israel and to those who, during the tribulation, have been saved ; Revelation 7:9-14; Luke 21:28; Psalms 96:11-13; Isaiah 35:4-10.

(4) That which Paul calls, "my Gospel" Romans 2:16. This is the Gospel of the grace of God in its fullest development, but includes the revelation of the result of that Gospel in the outcalling of the church, her relationships, position, privileges, and responsibility. It is the distinctive truth of Ephesians and Colossians, but interpenetrates all of Paul's writings.

III. There is "another Gospel" Galatians 1:6; 2 Corinthians 11:4 "which is not another," but a perversion of the Gospel of the grace of God, against which we are warned. It has many seductive forms, but the test is one--it invariably denies the sufficiency of grace alone to save, keep, and perfect, and mingles with grace some kind of human merit. In Galatia it was law, in Colosse fanaticism Colossians 2:18, etc. In any form its teachers lie under the awful anathema of God.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/srn.cgi?book=re&chapter=014

"A, maybe you can explain this "the soul is not immortal" concept in a way my simple peasant mind can understand. :)"

I think I tried in 8292. As you will note, my first words were that the soul is indeed immortal. In summary, I think that the way different Orthodox writers talk about the immortality of the soul depends on what they want to emphasize.

If wanting to emphasize the fact that we are not and never will be of one essence with God, but are created beings who depend on him for our very existence at every moment, it is said that the soul is not immortal by nature.

If wanting to emphasize the fact that our souls have an eternal destiny for which we must prepare in this short life on earth, and that we must attend to "the one thing needful," then the immortality of the soul is emphasized.

I also think that all of this must be considered against the backdrop of pagan Greek philosophy, from which men like Kalomiros and Constantine Cavarnos (who wrote what is perhaps the best little book on this topic that I have read) want to distance themselves.

Most pagan Greek philosophy contained, as I understand, the idea of the eternal self-existence of matter. There was perhaps a "prime mover" of that matter, but there was not a God outside of matter, space, and time who had created all of these things at a moment in which time began for that creation. There were ideas of the soul being eternal and immortal, even if there were different theories about the changes that the "substance" of the soul had undergone during its eternal existence

Modern Orthodox writers are writing in an atmosphere dominated by conventional Western historiography and histories of Christian theological development. According to that conventional wisdom, as we have discussed many times on this thread, Catholicism is based in Aristotelean philosophy and Orthodoxy is based in Platonic philosophy.

Now the three of *us* know from our personal experiences of worship and prayer within the Orthodox Church that we are not engaging in trying to achieve union with an impersonal Platonic "The One," with our immortal souls, being pieces of the original One, returning to their source.

But given the fact that the patristic writings are filled with *terminology* from Greek philosophy (imagine that, since it is the same language with the same vocabulary to draw on), and that many early Christian writers had a deep respect for Plato and Socrates because they had, in a very real sense, radically changed Greek religion/philosophy from a crude polytheistic paganism into a well-tilled field ripe for planting Hebrew/Christian doctrine and concepts, Orthodoxy indeed has its work cut out for herself to explain how it is that we do *not* ultimately have our roots in pagan Greek philosophy or in some sort of shotgun marriage between a bowdlerized Hebrew religion and a dressed-up Platonism.

There was indeed this Gentile "protoevangelion" and it is the reason why some early Christian writers even referred to Plato as "the prophet of the Greeks," and speculated that he must have had contact with the writings of Moses and the prophets for him to have arrived at some of the positions that he did.

It is against this backdrop that I think that we must consider these expositions on the soul not being immortal by nature. It is in the service of distancing ourselves from any idea of the pagan concept of the eternal self-existence of the "substance" of the soul.

St. Gregory Palamas was writing in a very different atmosphere. When he says that the soul is "self-existent," it is in the context of saying that the soul will not die and decay as does the body, and is emphasizing our difference from the animals in that regard. He is emphasizing the well-known fact that man is a curious combination of physical matter in a way that is similar to animals and of spiritual essence in a way that is similar to the angels. I doubt that St. Gregory Palamas would have questioned the assertion that the soul was created at a moment in time by God, and was not eternally pre-existent and self-sufficient, nor would he have questioned the assertion that the soul's self-existence and immortality is a gift of God, and not something that exists outside of God's animating power, "in which we live, and move, and have our being" -- in short the Holy Spirit, "the Lord, the giver of life."

K, that's as simple as I can make how I see all of this. But I've got a lot of manure on my boots still from having been at the ranch all last week, so maybe I can do better once I get me some citifying back into my system.

I don't remember Kalomiros's exact words, but he is as prone to poor choices of words as anyone, and if he simply stated that the soul is not immortal, I would consider that to be misleading and incomplete.

Now if you are saved, then you cannot lost that salvation (Eph.4:30). "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit" Why not? We can't loose our salvation anyways...

That is correct, we do not grieved the Holy Spirit, since we want to be controlled by Him and not our flesh(Rom.7)

The race being run has to do with rewards not salvation. (1Cor.9:24-26) LOL!!! Read the next verse. As usual, you have to cut and paste Scriptures to get it to say your heretical views of the Word of God.

Vs 27 has to do with being found unfaithful in the ministry.

Hence the loss of crowns (see 1Pet.5)

"I keep my body under, and bring [it] into subjection, lest preaching to others, I myself should become reprobate" 1 Cor 9:27 Other translations say "become disqualified". In either case, "there's no soup for you!" You don't get a prize for being disqualified or reprobate!

Exactly!

If he fails, he gets no crowns

Which has nothing to do with salvation since there will be Christians who not get any rewards, but will still be saved (1Cor.3:13-15)

So, if one does not produce fruit then one gets no crowns in eternity, but that has nothing to do with ones salvation.

The final glorification has to do with our receiving our resurrection Body, not salvation (Rom.8). Too many verses to prove this wrong. "For if ye live according to the flesh, ye shall die [yes, you too, Christians who have been 'saved'];

Yes, you will die, you will die the sin unto death (1Jn.5:16)

That verse has nothing to do with eternal damnantion.

but if through the Spirit ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live

That is correct, walk in the spirit and not in the flesh (Rom.8:1) so God does not have to judge you in time. (Gal.6, Heb.12)

Romans 8:13 we are sons of God, and if sons, also heirs certainly of God and joint-heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with [him] that we may be also glorified together [with him].

That verse proves my view that since the believer is a heir, he is saved, but only fruit bearing will result in his glorifiction at the Judgement seat of Christ (Rom.14:10)

Romans 8:17 "with the hope that the same creatures shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God" Romans 8:21 HOPE! "For in hope we are saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man sees, he does not wait for Romans 8:24 Wow. FAITH ALONE DOESN'T SAVE! We are also saved by hope!

No, we are not saved in the sense of the soul , but with the body, the final glorification of both body and soul together in one resurrection body.

vs.23 defines what the hope is referring to, 'to wit the redemption of the body.

As I said, Sanctification is in three phrases, first, salvation of the soul/spirit which is permanent at the time of faith in Christ, second, the Progressive sanctification, which is growth to earn rewards in heaven, and finally, ultimate sanctification, which is the receiving the resurrection body, which we now 'hope' for, yet do not yet see.

Well, that's enough for now, I don't have time to go through every verse in Romans 8, but you should be able to see that eternal salvation is not a done-deal. Our salvation from sin has only begun.

No, what you have shown is that you can just cite scripture without context and understanding.

Salvation is by faith alone, without works-proven by Rom.4:5, Eph.2:9)

Works show ones faith, they do not add to it since salvation is a free gift and cannot be earned.

Good works are suppose to be done by a Christian to glorify Christ before men and one is rewarded for them by crowns, gold, silver and precious stones in eternity.

The hope we hope for is the resurrection body and that is the final aspect of our eternal sanctification.

1Jn.5:13, 'these things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life...

You are suppose to know you have eternal life, not be striving for it.

To your both 8234 and 8236 have not been born again "Born again" is "baptized". Read the entire discourse with Nicodemus in John 3.

Born again is not being baptized (at least not with water).

Christ speaks of two births, one from water (flesh) and then one spiritual(vs.6)

Regarding Matthew 25:14-30, David Cloud writes What he writes is incomprehensible nonsense not related to Matthew 25.

No, it is very clear.

Matthew 25 has nothing to do with any Christian, it is related to Jews.

The man who thought Christ was a 'hard man' was an unbeliever, who did not know Christ.

All Jews were regarded as servants of God since God had created that nation for Himself.

you have never read the Pauline Epistles The Pauline epistles teach the very same thing: salvation is by grace through faith sustained by good works. No part of the New Testament cotradicts another. If you believe that St. Paul contradicts St. Matthew, or St. James, then you do not understand St. Paul. For example, Ephesians 2 indeed explains that salvation comes by grace through faith, but it also calls us to "walk good works" while avoiding pridefulness. This is a perfectly Catholic thing that St. Paul is saying there. It would also be useful for you to read therest of the letter, and find, for example, that we are to "walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called", "kind one to another; merciful, forgiving one another", "walk in love", -- just like the Church teaches.

Nothing you cited states that good works substain salvation.

Salvation is never substained by anything but God Himself (Eph.4:30, Jude 24, Rom.8:38-39).

You continue to say None of those exhortations to charity have anything to do with ones salvation, and that is the point that Paul is making by saying that works have nothing to do with salvation, they have to do with showing ones salvation This is not contained in the epistles. Work for reward and work mandated by law is explained to be not salvific; but work of charity is exhorted as salvific. If St. Paul meant to sweep up all the works as unrelated to justification he would not habitually segue into such exhortations in every letter right after he speaks of lack of salvific merit in works of reward and law. For example, St. Paul calls for virtuous life in Ephesians 5:1-4, then concludes "understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Seems that works of purity and marital duty are exactly that, salvific.

Note the word inheritance, that has to do with rewards.

Good works are a result of salvation, they result in eternal rewards but never can keep one saved or get one saved (Acts.15)

they are goats because they did not believe and they show that they unbelievers by their lack of good works. What prevented Christ from saying so, if that is the case? What about the preceding parable in Matthew 25, where it is shown that it is what you do with your talent of faith, not the possession of it, that counts for salvation.

And where do you read that the talents have to do with faith?

Does Christ say that it does?

In Matthew 18:24 a talent is described a being money, not faith.

That it is faith is an assumption you want to make.

But the Lord said in Matthew 7:17 that a tree is known by its fruit, not that the fruit has anything to do with substaining either roots or the tree.

No, but the Gospel of Grace is different then then three other Gospel messages preached [Mat 25], The Gospel of the Kingdom, the everlasting Gospel and the false Gospel that Satan uses to hide the truth Are you trying to say that what Jesus says in Matthew 25 is the false Gospel that Satan uses to hide the truth? I had always wondered why Protestants ignored Jesus teachings so much and prefered Paul's. They think Jesus teaches the false Gospel...

No, what I am saying is that Satan has a false Gospel which Paul calls accursed (Gal.1:8) that mixes faith plus works, as do most religions in the world.

What more can I say to you? I pray that God opens your eyes to the truth found in the entire Bible, not just your version of Romans and Galatians.

I pray that you really did believe in Christ for your salvation so you will not meet the same fate as those who have rejected the Gospel of the Grace of God, faith alone in Christ alone.

The rest, quite frankly, I didn't bother reading, after seeing your first sentence.

Study to shew thyself a workman, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2Tim.2:15)

Even Peter found some of what Paul was speaking of tough going (2Pe.3:16) and had to be corrected by him (Gal.2) for trying to go back to his Jewish roots.

"I too find it very interesting although I'm not convinced that our Lord Jesus simply made up a new word. That would be like Him telling the disciples, "Give us this day our xpwbosbuess bread." "

Hardly. The word "epiousios" is not a random collection of Greek letters. It is grounded in Greek etymology, and the creation of new words from parts of other words in order to convey a particular concept is hardly unknown. It happens all the time in the LXX -- if one reads some of the earlier Western grammars of LXX Greek, one sees these scholars -- grounded in what they consider to be "proper" classical Greek -- groaning at and ridiculing the gross Hebraisms and novel word constructions.

The Apostles had Christ right in front of them to ask questions of him -- they wouldn't be scratching their heads for long. A difference, as we have pointed out many times on this thread, between Protestantism and Orthodoxy is that we believe that the understandings that the Apostles had from their time with Christ had staying power, and weren't lost with the death of St. Paul.

"I don't think you can accuse Protestants of this simple because they are not reading the subtle nuance that some say is there."

No, but I can point out that Protestants read their own deeper meanings into this and other passages in the Bible. The difference, again, is that Protestants do so while completely ignoring or approaching patristic writings with extreme skepticism -- picking a few things and rejecting most of the rest. While we Orthodox use our brains and the guidance of the Holy Spirit when we read the Scriptures, we do so in the context of standing fast, and holding the traditions which we have been taught, whether by word, or by epistle.

"...it simply begs the question why the disciples didn't dispense the Eucharist daily..."

Who says they didn't? In those days, the Eucharist appears to have been in the context of communal meals -- and most people eat daily. There is nothing that I can see indicating that it took place only 4 times a year, as it was in my Reformed background, or only once a year, as Zwingli's practice was. You have no more direct evidence from Scripture that it wasn't daily than we have clear evidence that it was -- and you perhaps have less.

"It also means the Church is not following through on a command they now believe to be there."

The Eastern Church never felt that there was a command for the Liturgy to be served daily, that I can tell, if St. Augustine was already complaining about it in the 4th century that they didn't.

St. Paul says "as oft as ye" eat and drink the Body and Blood... so there I don't see a command for all to receive daily anywhere in the Scriptures, personally. I would point out, again, that if one considers all churches and monasteries worldwide, many Orthodox priests are serving the Divine Liturgy and the Body and Blood of Christ are being partaken of by many -- not only daily, but probably around the clock... So if there is a command, the Church is keeping it.

"To make any claims other than "our daily bread" is presumptuous."

You'd better write those Reformed folks who put out "Daily Bread," then, and tell them that they need to stop their presumption and change the name of their Scriptural devotional booklet.

"What would (Southern Agrarians like) Donald Davidson or Allen Tate think about this?"

Well, none of us are on their intellectual level, so they would have considered us to be pretty amateurish. But I think that they probably would have had some appreciation for our lengthy discussions on various Greek and Latin words, what they mean, and how they were used in various works -- such as the discussion that Annalex, HarleyD and I have been having about the word "epiousios" in the Lord's Prayer.

I certainly think that John Crowe Ransom would have approved. Read "God without Thunder," and you will read someone who would have fit in on this thread very nicely. And I think that most of us would agree with Davidson's "intense disgust with the spiritual disorder of modern life...."

As to Tate, well, he would aloofly have intellectually eaten us all for lunch with room left over for dessert -- had he condescended to speak with us. But I think that had he dived in, he would have found, in the discussions between Orthodox Christians and Catholics and Protestants, some things of great interest, given the fact that he, perhaps more acutely than any of the Agrarians, saw the deep internal contractions and conflict in the Western European mind -- between scientific rationalism and Western forms of Christian dogma. As he wrote in "Religion and the Old South:" "This was the peril of the European mind and the medieval Church knew it." Tate saw that the "Russian or eastern European mind" was very different, but thought it was "quite simply supernaturalism."

Where Ransom's ultimate pulling back from any consideration of actually becoming Eastern Orthodox was based on a sort of cultural "abhorrence," (which is understandable since his only personal contact with Orthodox Christians were with non-English speaking immigrants in a Wyoming mining town -- yet for all that he said that he admired them and their religion) Tate's objections to the Eastern Church were, to put it bluntly, based on an inadequate understanding of how the Eastern -- that is to say, Orthodox -- mind works, and that mind is hardly devoid of reason.

Tate observed that "the Western Church established a system of quantity for the protection of quality, but there was always the danger that quantity would revolt from servitude and suppress its master..." Very perceptive. He notes that "the Eastern Church never had to ... construct a plausible rationality round the supernatural to make it acceptable; it has never had a philosophy, nor a dogma in our sense; it never needed one." Again, very perceptive, and I think he would have seen that contrast right here on this thread.

And there are further parallels: Tate observed that "the South could be ignorant of Europe because she *was* Europe... and the South could remain simple-minded because she had no use for the intellectual agility required to define its position... The Southern mind was simple, not top-heavy with learning it had no need of, unintellectual, and composed; it was personal and dramatic, rather than abstract and metaphysical..." I could go on and on from that particular essay.

Tate's self-described "irreligiosity" in his treatment of the Christianity he saw in the West in general and America in particular was not something he saw as being desirable -- but simply unavoidable given this clarity of vision. Tate saw not only the deep contradictions within the Western Christian mind, but specifically saw that the religion of the South was fundamentally flawed. He said that "the South would not have been defeated had she possessed a sufficient faith in her own kind of God. She would not have been defeated, in other words, had she been able to bring out a body of docrine setting forth her true conviction that the ends of man require more for their realization than politics. The setback of the war was of itself a very trivial one."

Fascinatingly, Davidson asks the question: "How may the Southerner [or I would say, the "agrarian" in general] take hold of his tradition? The answer is: by violence."

He says: "The Southerner is faced with this paradox: He must use an instrument, which is political, and so unrealistic and pretentious that he cannot believe in it, to re-establish a private, self-contained, and essentially spiritual life."

What I am slowly getting at is that there are a great many "agrarians" -- whether they would recognize themselves as such, or have read Tate and Davidson and Ransom or not -- who have taken a very different kind of "violence" (a distinctly non-political or apolitical violence) to re-establish these "private, self-contained, and essentially spiritual" lives for themselves and their families. They have gone beyond the cultural "abhorrence" and discovered a way not to be "defeated" by the modern world -- which world is simply a finely honed version of what "the world" has always been for those who have sought God from the time of Adam and Eve outside the gates of Paradise down to our own Christian day. These agrarians have become Orthodox... There are a fair number of us around FR.

Sorry to have nabbed your screen-name, but first-come, first-served. :-) And indeed, "long live the green fields of Our Lord." I'm going to ping a couple of people who I think might be interested, and invite them to ping any others who might enjoy this turn of conversation (there are no rules on this thread other than that one make modest attempts at civility)...

Nice to have someone around here who has read Tate, Davidson, et al -- all too many of them have left over the years, primarily because it is hard to be an agrarian and blindly cheer for anything the Republican party happens to do on a given day... I primarily hide out on the religion threads now, because it doesn't seem that there is anyone to talk to about that other stuff these days on FR, unlike my early days on FR when we would have long threads discussing Cato, Cicero, Russell Kirk, the Agrarians...

Maybe we can re-establish an Agrarian thread or two, and try not to get banned in the process.

Both of you summed it up pretty well, especially you Agrarian. Kolo and I are rough around the edges, sort of Orthodox by osmosis. I can go all day and read things and different things pop up into my head and question everything, but at the end of the day it's all gone as I get ready for my evening prayers. I don't even remember what I was thinking or saying.

Once I let go, it's like it never was there. A mental exercise that doesn't even seem to put a notch on what I feel inside. It is that incredible divide that always amazes me. But, I have to admit that A makes some good points, as always, even though he would have us believe that he is but a farmer with mud covered boots. And, of course, there is nothing simple about you Kolo either. But, you know how it is, the more complex the minds, the simpler the soul, and I mean that in a positive sense.

I would like to add a comment on A's mention of Aristotelian philosophy. If Aristotelian philosophy defines Latin Catholicism, then the soul would not be immortal if I understand it correctly. Aristotelian way of thinking is that the soul is here and now and as long you or something exists, the soul exists. Thus a match has a 'soul' in that it exists as a match and only for one purpose — to produce fire. Once a match is used, and is burnt, it is no longer a match; it ceases to exist as a match. Thus a human at the moment of death ceases to be that curious combination of animal and angelic.

Platonism, on the other hand, thought of essence as something that cannot be changed; we never cease to be human, even when we die. Orthodoxy specifically prohibits cremation for that purpose, and the universal idea of respecting even dead humans is a reflection of that thinking.

A strikes the bullseye when he says that the difference in our way of thinking is that we are not being returned to the impersonal One. Christianity differs from other religions in that we not only interact with God's energies but through Christ makes it possible for the ineffable God to become visible and close to us on our level; a filter or descrambler if you will between the uncreated and the created.

I would also agree that perhaps Kailomors sometimes uses unfortunate choices for his words, but the idea is that the a human being (a living soul as mentioned in Gen 2:7) dies, but it is clear that the soul, as the essence, is destined to spend eternity either with or without God. And in that, K says it simple and clear: "spiritual death is separation from God while "immortality" is everlasting life with God."

Thanks for the ping. The agrarian discussion is fascinating.

I must admit that I have not read much systematically in the area since college - at one time "I'll Take My Stand" was very dear to me.

Two of the professors I knew at Auburn, Dr Weatherby and Dr Allen, had been taught by agrarians at Vanderbilt, and both of these men became Orthodox Christians in the mid-1970s.

It's predictable but lamentable that Vanderbilt does its best to deny its connection with the agrarians, none of their poetry is taught today at Vandy. I suppose much of it can be laid at the feet of unthinking PC. To be fair to Vanderbilt, some of the agrarianism were openly racist, notably Davidson, who had the longest connection with the university.

Davidson, was, however, a great thinker, writer and poet. Great art should not be shunned merely because the artist is an SOB. If that were the test many museums and libraries would be nearly vacant.

Have you read "Crunchy Cons"? To be sure, it's not on the same plane as the primary agrarian works you mentioned, but Rod Dreher hits on many themes that agrarians hold dear. I understand that Rod is seriously considering becoming Orthodox. His chapter on Religion includes an interview with an Orthodox friend of mine.

I believe there is a connection between the world-view of Orthodoxy and agrarianism. Both share a conception of ordinary things as sacramental. The environment we live our lives in is important. There is more to life than materialism and efficiency.

Somehow I had a feeling that you had an agrarian connection, and that's why I pinged you. I think it is fascinating that you had two agrarian-educated professors who became Orthodox -- but not surprising.

I remember being floored when I read the essay by John Crowe Ransom collected in "The Superfluous Men," seeing his straight-forward assertion that orthodoxy was to be found first and formost in Orthodoxy. One didn't expect to see that in a man from Tennessee writing many, many decades ago. Likewise Tate's incredible essay on religion and the Old South that I quoted from (it is in his "Collected Essays."

You are right that some of the agrarians were openly racist. At the very least, many could be accused of pretending that racism and slavery had never existed. Not to take this obvious problem head-on doomed them to being forgotten. I think that this is a big unspoken part of what Tate's essay addresses -- the South had good instincts, but couldn't defend them, for a host of reasons, not least of which was the fact that they were never able to put their instincts together into a coherent whole.

"Davidson, was, however, a great thinker, writer and poet. Great art should not be shunned merely because the artist is an SOB. If that were the test many museums and libraries would be nearly vacant."

I couldn't agree more.

I'll have to check out "Crunchy Cons" -- I'm always interested in reading things in this line.

"I believe there is a connection between the world-view of Orthodoxy and agrarianism. Both share a conception of ordinary things as sacramental. The environment we live our lives in is important. There is more to life than materialism and efficiency."

I of course couldn't agree more. The original Agrarian movement was fatally flawed, but its study has incredible value for a host of reasons, not least of which is the fact that these gentlemen were trying to make sense of it all in a specifically modern American context, as are we.

we do not grieved the Holy Spirit, since we want to be controlled by Him and not our flesh(Rom.7)

Presumably, but not automatically. Consider that Paul tells his readers/listeners that people can be disqualified, can be disinherited. So persevere or else!

If he fails, he gets no crowns

Which has nothing to do with salvation since there will be Christians who not get any rewards, but will still be saved (1Cor.3:13-15)

Nice try, but one who is disqualified doesn't get ANYTHING. No heaven, no crown, no prize, nothing. One such as that is cast out of heaven, since anyone who achieves heaven has received a great prize. A person in heaven has NOT been disqualified. Again, you are desperately reaching, just as in James.

So, if one does not produce fruit then one gets no crowns in eternity, but that has nothing to do with ones salvation.

Wrong. No fruits, no heaven. Quite simply, if you have no fruits, you are not abiding in the Lord, you have no faith, you aren't saved... Attaining eternal life is not about a one-time event.

Yes, you will die, you will die the sin unto death (1Jn.5:16)

Don't use John to prove Paul's meaning. They are two different writers using two different meanings. Go to the end of Romans 6:

For the wages of sin is [eternal] death, but the grace of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:23)

but if through the Spirit ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live

That is correct, walk in the spirit and not in the flesh (Rom.8:1)

And if you don't???

That verse proves my view that since the believer is a heir, he is saved...

No it doesn't. You forgot the word IF in Romans 8:13. IF you do such and such, THEN you will be such and such...

No, we are not saved in the sense of the soul , but with the body, the final glorification of both body and soul together in one resurrection body.

There is no sense of any sort of separation between salvation of the body and the soul. That is your personal twist that the passage [Rom 8:17,21] never distinguishes. And what about "hope saves"?

I disagree with this. First of all, when we die, we aren't going to be receiving glorified bodies. That will not occur until the Final Judgment. Second of all, salvation is not permanent until we die. At that point, our eternal destiny is determined. Christ didn't teach that we could rest secure in our salvation as a done deal. He over and over preached perseverance - and He also told us that many will say "Lord, Lord..." and Jesus will reply "I never knew you". Only those who DO the will of the Father will be saved, not those who claim they know the Father.

We believe that justification/sanctification is an ongoing process that is never finished in this life - nor is it eternally secure in while we are alive, as one can always return to their former ways, as a "dog returning to the vomit (cf. 2 Peter 2:22)

Salvation is by faith alone, without works-proven by Rom.4:5, Eph.2:9)

Neither of those two verses say we are saved by faith alone. They say we are saved without works, but it doesn't say "faith alone". Sorry. Read what is there... You are the one twisting verses here. The Bible NEVER NEVER NEVER says we are saved by faith alone. I find that VERY strange, IF that was the true Gospel. The only time "faith" and "alone" are placed TOGETHER is when James DENIES it - "we are NOT saved by faith alone"...

You can complain and accuse me all you want, but the simple fact is that the Scriptures tell us that faith alone does not save.

I would be happy to discuss what else is necessary, but you are going to have to be more open to the truth, rather than repeating the same old stuff that the Scriptures explicitly denies.

Regards

I would like to add a comment on A's mention of Aristotelian philosophy. If Aristotelian philosophy defines Latin Catholicism, then the soul would not be immortal

How the medieval Schoolmen used Aristotle to explain Christian theology is a complicated question. What they took most from Aristotle was logic and dialectic method. They claimed to use logic to prove the truth of Revelation.

The Scholastics got their Aristotle from Muslim Spain--Greek translated into Arabic translated into Latin. They regrarded the Muslim Averroes as the greatest commentator and interpreter of Aristotle. Whether he understood Aristotle correctly or not, he affirmed an impersonal immortality of the soul.

By the Renaissance the arguments of the mortality or immortality of the soul reached such a pitch, that the Lateran Council of 1512 established the immortality of the soul as a dogma of the Church.

But there is another side to the argument. If your Christianity is informed significantly by considerations of pneumatology and eschatology, then I think you have to go the other way and say that the soul is created mortal and only receives its immortality at the Resurrection of the dead when it is reunited with the body.

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.