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.

FK: "In this case the harborer decides on his own to extract potentially thousands and thousands of tax dollars away from benefiting Americans ..."

How would I do that? I don't decide to give illegals free medical care. I don't give illegals Social Security.

You are not a harborer, so you are not doing it. However, those who are harborers know that liberal states and courts are requiring that billions of dollars be spent on the care, education, and benefits of illegals. That makes harborers part of the problem.

What is the problem with letting a person work if they want to work?

Nothing, if they do it legally. Drug dealers and prostitutes work too, you know. :) While in most cases they are not morally comparable, they are comparable in that they are lawbreakers earning a living while cheating the rest of society out of their fair share in taxes, etc. Do you really think the vast majority of illegals pay taxes in the U.S? No way.

Do you think unemployed American citizens are clawing at the farmer's door trying to get hired to harvest the fields? What money am I taking away from Americans?

Your philosophy takes plenty of money away from Americans. US citizens cannot afford to live on the $3 an hour that illegals will work for. The poor are shut out of that labor market and are forced onto welfare. The argument that illegals do jobs Americans won't do is BOGUS!!! In the farm industry, where there is the greatest share of illegals, they still only represent 24%. That means those same jobs are being currently done 3 to 1 by Americans. Your policy greatly helps the illegal poor person, and greatly hurts the American poor person. If a market wage was offered for those jobs, Americans would take them. Yes, our vegetables would cost more, but I would gladly pay that difference knowing that Americans would be employed, paying taxes, and their kids would then be able to go to college, etc.

Ah, now your Calvinistic background is showing. Capitalism has no concern for those who are unfortunate or for companies who are perceived as having problems. Capitalism is the economic equivalent of Darwinism's "survival of the fittest". That's not a Christian idea at all. Community has no place in capitalism.

I've heard of being anti-business, but you take it to an extreme. Are you aware of how many billions of dollars are given away each year by American corporations? Gates by himself gives away nine figures. Pharmaceutical companies give away free medicine to the poor. Power companies give credits. Beverage companies give zillions of gallons of water to disaster victims. I could go on for a week. Why would they ever do this if they had no sense of community? Even if you want to take the cynical view, which I'm sure you will :), charity is good business. That is just as much a part of capitalism as anything else.

ALL laws are in the eye of the beholder. But man has enough common sense to judge as a community that some laws make no sense. There is no reason to believe that laws have some sort of force over mankind just because they were implemented by 5 or 7 people with an agenda.

Man has enough common sense, huh? Would these be the same men (all men) that God gives sufficient information to in order to choose Him, and yet they don't? Is that the common sense of man you are talking about? Oh yeah, I think, as you do, that all men should just use their common sense to decide which laws to obey. Come on. :)

So you have a problem with those who stand outside an abortion clinic and someone calls the cops on them and throws them in jail for "disturbing the peace"?

No, this is just like a sit-in that I already told you I was fine with. That doesn't hurt anyone else in any way. I said I see this as being different from hiding a fugitive from justice. Your philosophy actively hurts Americans to help those others you deem more worthy.

Does God tell us to love our neighbor or to worry about obeying unfair laws?

God never said we can't do both at the same time.

Did not Christ heal on the Sabbath? I think you are not taking into account the teachings of Christ.

Who did Christ hurt by healing on the Sabbath? You are comparing apples and oranges. But by all means, prove to me that you are serious. Look at where your taxes are going. You must disagree. I fully encourage you to skip your next return in protest. As you said, that's how unfair laws get changed. Don't worry, God will protect you from any consequences because He healed on the Sabbath. As your argument goes, that gives you the right.

Stealing is still sinful, it is just that the culpability is less in some situations. Not all sins are the same seriousness. And certainly, we do not believe that the ends justify the means. Thus, there is no "justifiable sin".

I respectfully disagree that this reflects anything like what you have told me so far. Your whole position so far has been predicated on your righteousness in determining which laws you will condescend to obey and which you find unacceptable, and thus, feel free to disobey (with God's blessing no less). You argued that if a silly and unfair law, such as against stealing, got in the way of a hungry person, then he had the RIGHT to steal, with God's approval. And, God would think it nothing because of the circumstances. Now, it sounds like you're taking it back. The weight of evidence is that your above paragraph is an anomaly. You have showed me very little respect for the laws of the United States.

Religious law of Jewish theocracy means much more than today. There was no distinction between "religious" law and "political" law in the Jewish mindset. ... Thus, we CAN make the comparison today with Jesus' teachings of gleaning wheat or curing on the Sabbath.

No, there is no comparison. Jesus completed the law as was His right and mission. He did not give this right to you. Show me where Jesus teaches that each of us writes his own law under a valid political government. Of course, He does not.

The Law of Love demands that I feed the hungry, etc. Your stance in defense of such a law [defending the borders] appears more Pharisaical the more I think about it. You defend the law at the expense of a person who has not broken a law against humanity.

And you defend an unlawful action which includes jeopardy to the safety and security of your own countrymen. While I am sure that you will vouch for the non-hostility of 15 million illegals, some of the rest of us can't take your word for it. :) I really did think you were kidding with all of this, but now you have convinced me. Your views of our sovereignty as a nation, the Constitution, and the laws of the United States, are clear to me now. :) I guess that is what universalism is.

What a crock. There are numerous jobs in the newspaper, yet, unemployment is high here and there are a number of homeless AMERICANS who refuse to work, prefering to milk the welfare system. And why can illegal aliens work on three dollars an hour (or whatever) while living in America? What magic do they employ to be able to make ends meet while Americans cannot?

The argument that illegals do jobs Americans won't do is BOGUS!!! In the farm industry, where there is the greatest share of illegals, they still only represent 24%.

I don't know what you are talking about. Every field that I drive by is full of Mexican laborers. I don't see any Americans out there...What your statistics are not taking into account is the very broad number of types of jobs. Sure, Americans will take the job of driving tractors or managing laborers. But who do you think is cutting the lettuce? In labor-intense jobs, there are very few Americans.

Are you aware of how many billions of dollars are given away each year by American corporations? Gates by himself gives away nine figures. Pharmaceutical companies give away free medicine to the poor. Power companies give credits. Beverage companies give zillions of gallons of water to disaster victims. I could go on for a week. Why would they ever do this if they had no sense of community?

Well, Gates is not the norm! But the rest is based on tax credits. The owners of these companies are NOT in the business of giving money away to the community, but in making money for their shareholders. Anything given away is a drop in the bucket and is received back in tax credits...

God gives us free will, so He doesn't overwhelm us with His power and force us to choose Him. Our choice in Him is based on faith, not certainty. Anything that happens in our lives that we attribute to God COULD be attributed to blind luck, coincidence, or our own natural abilities. We believe that God acts in our lives, not random events. But this is a matter of faith. Thus, yours is a false argument, since God is not based on empirical evidence.

No, this is just like a sit-in that I already told you I was fine with. That doesn't hurt anyone else in any way.

Oh, but they do... Those who fight for the "right to choose" are bothered by any type of display that gives a person the right to choose life. Thus, they may call the police to have peaceful demonstrations dispersed.

Who did Christ hurt by healing on the Sabbath?

that is not the question you have posed to me. You have told me that because of its mere existence, I should obey a law. I disagree with that idea.

But by all means, prove to me that you are serious. Look at where your taxes are going. You must disagree. I fully encourage you to skip your next return in protest. As you said, that's how unfair laws get changed. Don't worry, God will protect you from any consequences because He healed on the Sabbath. As your argument goes, that gives you the right.

That certainly is an option, but my convictions are not so strong on this subject to do such a thing. My conscience is not offended as greatly to take such action regarding my taxes, because I am told to pay to Caesar what is Caesar's...

Your whole position so far has been predicated on your righteousness in determining which laws you will condescend to obey and which you find unacceptable, and thus, feel free to disobey (with God's blessing no less). You argued that if a silly and unfair law, such as against stealing, got in the way of a hungry person, then he had the RIGHT to steal, with God's approval. And, God would think it nothing because of the circumstances.

Could you please quote me where I said anything to that effect? I merely said that a person's culpability in stealing is less, not non-existent, when stealing. Stealing is ALWAYS a sin! The circumstances will effect the "level" of sin against God. However, feeding a person who is defined as an illegal (a Samaritan?) is not against the Ten Commandments, but against the laws of men. My conscience dictates that I obey God's Law first, since He has given precedent for disobeying the laws of men so as to obey the Law of Love.

You have showed me very little respect for the laws of the United States.

When they are in contradistinction to the laws of God, they deserve no respect. Abortion is a horrific law, I don't give a crap if it is an "American" law. Sending Jews to labor camps because they are Jews is a horrific law, I don't care if it was a "German" law. We judge man's law through the lenses of Jesus Christ.

I thought a Christian would know that we answer to God first, not man. If we all thought as you did, there would be not a single martyr or confessor in the Church's history. Meditate on that for awhile, FK. Ask yourself WHY they gave their lives - in defiance of man's "laws"...

Regards

And why can illegal aliens work on three dollars an hour (or whatever) while living in America? What magic do they employ to be able to make ends meet while Americans cannot?

Because they are willing to live in squalor, 20 to a shack. Your philosophy says "why shouldn't Americans live like that?". Mine says "Why should they?". It comes down to valuing one group of people over another. For whatever reason, it seems clear you value illegals above Americans. My loyalties are to my countrymen above illegal aliens when scarce resources are at stake.

Plus, illegals don't have the expenses that other poor Americans have because social services are provided for free (stolen). American working poor have to pay their taxes and contribute to their medical care from their paychecks etc. Illegals have none of these expenses, by and large.

Sure, Americans will take the job of driving tractors or managing laborers. But who do you think is cutting the lettuce? In labor-intense jobs, there are very few Americans.

If there are very few Americans it is because they have been priced out of the market by illegals. This is Economics 101. The free market is being disturbed by the illegals. The only justification I have heard is the preference of one people (illegals) over another (Americans).

You're unbelievable. :) Are you a tax lawyer? Where in the world do you get that charitable contributions are all made back in tax credits? That's nonsense. If that was true then every corporation would give enough away (to earn the good will) to pay no taxes at all. Do you think big companies pay no taxes? I don't even understand your complaint. American corporations give away billions of dollars to worthy causes every year and that is bad BECAUSE ...? This is free market capitalism, and you don't think this is compatible with Christianity?

We were talking about your assertion that man has enough common sense to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. I pointed out that under your theology, most people have little or no common sense (as you said because they do not have faith), therefore with all information necessary (under the Catholic view) they still choose satan over Christ. I do not see how your above responds to the issue. If you agree that most people do not have faith, and therefore common sense, then how is the result NOT anarchy when according to you everyone should decide for himself which laws he should obey?

FK: "No, this is just like a sit-in that I already told you I was fine with. That doesn't hurt anyone else in any way."

No, when I said "hurt" I meant physically or financially. Americans have the right to protest, even if it hurts someone else's feelings. If the demonstration was truly peaceful, and the organizers had their permits, then there is nothing the cops can do. ... You are defending harboring illegals which, if systematically adopted by other clergy, absolutely WILL lead to the physical injury or death of law abiding Americans AND the physical draining of American financial resources. While I already know you have no problem reaching into the wallets of law abiding Americans to finance your pet projects, I wonder what those clergy and you will tell the families and victims of violent crimes committed by the illegals you have decided have a right to be here in defiance of the Constitution.

You have told me that because of its mere existence, I should obey a law. I disagree with that idea.

No, I have said that you should obey a law of a valid political government, when such law does not separate you from God. That gets rid of Daniel-type comparisons. You have also disagreed with THIS idea. I do not see Christ approving of any person today, who picks and chooses, based on his own judgment, which laws he shall obey and which laws he is above in his own mind. This is especially true when the breaking of the law directly harms others, as is the case here. Such a person is anarchistic and anti-social towards an ordered and civilized society. IOW, not a very good Christian example. :)

Could you please quote me where I said anything to that effect? I merely said that a person's culpability in stealing is less, not non-existent, when stealing.

You have said, in effect, that you do not feel honor bound to follow any law you think is unfair, or is unjust. Is that not accurate? When you labeled stealing "in special circumstances" as being a non-mortal sin, I instantly knew that such a sin need not even be confessed. IOW, wink wink, not a big deal even though it's straight from the Ten Commandments.

However, feeding a person who is defined as an illegal (a Samaritan?) is not against the Ten Commandments, but against the laws of men. My conscience dictates that I obey God's Law first, since He has given precedent for disobeying the laws of men so as to obey the Law of Love.

It proves you are scrambling when you keep raising an undisputed issue. I have never used whatever California law you are referring to in my arguments. Feeding is fine, harboring or obstructing justice is criminal. Your "Law of Love" protects some small percentage of illegals who WILL go on to murder and otherwise hurt Americans. ALL of those you protect take food off the table from all Americans. Where does God teach us to individually TAKE from our neighbor to help the poor?

When [American laws] are in contradistinction to the laws of God, they deserve no respect. Abortion is a horrific law, I don't give a crap if it is an "American" law. Sending Jews to labor camps because they are Jews is a horrific law, I don't care if it was a "German" law. We judge man's law through the lenses of Jesus Christ.

First of all, the German government is different because it COMPELLED the murder of innocents. For comparative purposes, this would be like Daniel's situation, a compulsion to disobey God. In this case American law doesn't do that, it offers to allow people to break God's law. Nobody requires our women to get abortions. Big difference.

Second of all, if your philosophy grew in popularity then it is an absolute certainty that Americans would be killed by some of those harbored by clergy. According to you, God approves of illegals having a better quality of life, AND that is worth the trade of some Americans dying (a statistical certainty since the clergy cannot possibly promise that none of their fugitives will murder in the future).

Now, using this as a base, do you approve of people shooting abortion doctors as a protest? American lives WOULD be saved with every less abortionist out there, no? Legalized murder is an unjust law, no? God must approve of this because in comparison, while still some American abortionists are killed (but God was fine with that before), in this case more American lives are saved. This sounds like a much better deal than what you are advocating, because with your philosophy there is only the death of Americans, no lives are saved because all the illegals face is deportation. On the one hand, by supporting harboring you de facto approve of some deaths of Americans to further the quality of life of illegals as a whole. If so, then you must also approve of the deaths of other Americans, if it actually saves more lives. This entire argument is possible since you freely admit that you have no respect for laws you do not like.

For whatever reason, it seems clear you value illegals above Americans. My loyalties are to my countrymen above illegal aliens when scarce resources are at stake.

Not at all. I think you are taking my argument way too far (why am I not surprised...). I am merely saying that a law should not prevent us from aiding a person in desperate need. This country does NOT have "scarce resources". This nation has enough resources to feed the entire world by itself... The problem is vastly unequal distribution. Consider how the middle class in this country is shrinking. I do not hold any law as sacred if it interferes with my duty as a Christian. Nor do I rationalize that because a man is an illegal alien, I shouldn't help him. That is exactly that attitude Jesus condemns in the story of the Good Samaritan. My loyalty is to God and His Laws, not the man-made laws of this Country. If they coincide, I obey. If not, then I follow Christ. And you?

Plus, illegals don't have the expenses that other poor Americans have because social services are provided for free (stolen).

Stolen? They are freely given. There are numerous charities and governmental programs that give to people in need. They don't "steal" social services from anyone. It doesn't make a difference to charities WHO comes to them, as long as they are in need. If you feel resources are too few, that is because we live in a country that has little care for the community.

American corporations give away billions of dollars to worthy causes every year and that is bad BECAUSE ...? This is free market capitalism, and you don't think this is compatible with Christianity?

You have an uncanny way of putting words into other people's mouths. Slow down! I never said that companies giving money to charities is bad... I am saying that they are not in the business of giving money to the poor. Isn't it rather obvious that at the corporate level, there is a huge unequal distribution of wealth? I am sure that the CEO of a faltering company is really worth that 20 million dollar golden parachute...As to "giving away billions", perhaps you should read a company's financial report someday and see how much IS charitable contributions...it is minute.

I don't think one must have faith to have common sense. Even before my conversion, I had enough "sense" to know that murdering an unborn infant was morally wrong, that sending Jews to prison for being Jews was wrong, and so forth. The Bible clearly tells us that God has written a Law unto people's hearts - even on pagans. Thus, it isn't absolutely necessary to be a Christian to have common sense on the morality of a law, as you are saying.

No, when I said "hurt" I meant physically or financially. Americans have the right to protest, even if it hurts someone else's feelings

As long as it has nothing to do with feeding a starving illegal alien, because then I would be helping a person steal from a poor American...

You are defending harboring illegals

I am? I said I understand the good Cardinal's view, but I also said I didn't condone it. My concern is against laws that charge me with a misdemeanor for helping someone who is hungry or thirsty. What would Jesus do? Would he obey such a law?

Feeding is fine, harboring or obstructing justice is criminal.

By feeding and giving drink, apparently, I am aiding and abetting a "crinimal".

Your "Law of Love" protects some small percentage of illegals who WILL go on to murder and otherwise hurt Americans. ALL of those you protect take food off the table from all Americans. Where does God teach us to individually TAKE from our neighbor to help the poor?

That is terrible rationalization. Because "15%" of illegals are criminals, that excuses you from not doing ANYTHING to help a neighbor (as defined by Christ, not the American government) in need? Potentially, ANYONE who holds out a hand is a criminal (as defined by God's Law) in this country, so your argument is worthless and an poor attempt to justify yourself.

To be perfectly and brutally honest, I am beginning to question your idea of comfortable Christianity. Is this the result of your self-proclaimed salvation? Is this your faith in action?

ALL of those you protect take food off the table from all Americans. Where does God teach us to individually TAKE from our neighbor to help the poor?

It teaches us to take food off OUR table and give to the poor. Or were you not aware of that teaching, either?

I think you need to read up on the rise of the Third Reich, because you don't know what you are talking about. The attitude towards the Jews preceded the rise of the Nazi Party and Adolph Hitler utilized this. Jews were placed in concentration camps BEFORE World War 2. They were treated as second class citizens by the general population BEFORE World War 2. And we are talking about a first-world Christian nation! Considering your attitude towards the sacredness of law and illegal aliens as second class folk, I see similarities between your excuses and the German people's excuses for not helping a neighbor in need. "It's the law. I can't help a person hungry. He is an (illegal/Jew)"... This is NOT the Christianity of the Bible. "There is no Greek or Jew, man or woman, slave or freeman",... illegal alien or legal citizen...

I seriously doubt that Christ would cast out an illegal alien, since He had no problems going to ALL members of society, Samaritans, pagans, Pharisees, tax collectors, etc...

According to you, God approves of illegals having a better quality of life, AND that is worth the trade of some Americans dying (a statistical certainty since the clergy cannot possibly promise that none of their fugitives will murder in the future).

When did I say I favor harboring illegals, especially who were criminals? And of course, your logic is quite silly, because it leads to the rationalization that one should not give to ANY charity, because some of that money might find its way into the hands of an AMERICAN criminal... That is why the Bible doesn't tell us to judge a person's exterior and we are to give freely, regardless if the person is a sinner or a taxcollector.

Now, using this as a base, do you approve of people shooting abortion doctors as a protest?

I already told you "no". It is never "OK" to commit a crime against the Ten Commandments, nor does the end justify the means. The rest of your argument depends on a "yes", so I won't bother with it.

I must admit, your "comfortable Christianity" is cause for concern. Is this a common thing in Protestantism? Are there Protestants who are willing to obey God before man?

Regards

if everyone in America gave away their wealth tomorrow, do you honestly think it would solve anything?

Yes, for those who receive it. I do not believe God wants us to give away our wealth, at least all of us generally (though He may call specific persons to do that). God DOES appear to us through other people in need - and it appears our salvation will depend, to a degree, on how we treat people in need (Mat 25:31-45). Giving a cup of water to one who is thirsty is an act of kindness that should not be done away with merely because it won't solve the ENTIRE WORLD'S problems. God gave me limited resources, so He certainly does not expect me to solve the world's problems. But people who come into my path and am able to help, God willing, I will help.

And who do you give it to or classify as "poor"?

That depends on the individual. We all must decide whom to give to. And secondly, God doesn't require me to give MONEY every time. There are other ways of giving if I cannot give money, for example, I can give encouragement or I can offer to pray for someone else. God doesn't expect me to become destitute financially. I give money when I feel it is appropriate. but I don't rationalize "because I can't solve the world's hunger problem, I shouldn't bother giving anything".

I don't mind supporting those who have worked and are in the country LEGALLY but Paul stated that if a man does not work, he should not eat (2 Thess 3:10). Rather a harsh statement from a godly man.

To my knowledge, the vast majority of illegals come here TO WORK. This is unlike many Americans who have been on welfare for years and REFUSE to get a job because then the free money would stop. I am not condoning that we shouldn't attempt to keep people out of this country illegally. But this nation does need to reform legal temporary visas and worker permits and cracking down on businesses that illegally employ them. I have no problems building a fence to protect us. But this country does need more laborers willing to work in the fields.

Regards

I am merely saying that a law should not prevent us from aiding a person in desperate need.

The problem is that your idea of "aiding" hurts other people, specifically law abiding Americans. You still haven't explained the scriptural basis for hurting the disfavored (Americans) in order to help the favored (illegals).

This country does NOT have "scarce resources". This nation has enough resources to feed the entire world by itself...

ALL resources are scarce. Any resource that is not scarce would be valueless, and thus free. Since some food is relatively cheap, that only means it is less scarce than other things, but since it still has value it is scarce. "Scarcity" is a basic concept in Economics.

I do not hold any law as sacred if it interferes with my duty as a Christian. Nor do I rationalize that because a man is an illegal alien, I shouldn't help him.

My loyalty is to God and His Laws, not the man-made laws of this Country. If they coincide, I obey. If not, then I follow Christ. And you?

Since you favor illegal immigration and the harboring of them by clergy, you obviously see a conflict between God's law and man's law of a sovereign border. You have yet to explain to me how God supports your position. You are free to go to Mexico and help all the poor people you want. You are free to send all the money you want down to Mexico for the same reason. You (or your clergy) are not free to harbor criminals and hurt Americans because you have a pet project. The Samaritan story does not apply at all to what we are discussing.

[Social services are] stolen? They are freely given. There are numerous charities and governmental programs that give to people in need. They don't "steal" social services from anyone. It doesn't make a difference to charities WHO comes to them, as long as they are in need. If you feel resources are too few, that is because we live in a country that has little care for the community.

As Harley indicated earlier, you are advocating communism. It has been tried before. It doesn't work. Interestingly, when the Puritans first came over they tried communism for a brief time. When they discovered that no one had any incentive to work, and the society was under-producing, they dropped it.

But getting back to your comment, yes, social services are being stolen by the illegals. I'm not talking about free charity, I'm talking about stolen from the taxpayers. Are you not aware that hospital emergency rooms are being closed all the time in your part of the country because no one is paying? Those charities are not paying, the illegals are not paying, and there isn't enough money in state budgets to pay. Now more and more Americans will not get the health care they need SOLELY because of illegals.

Well then why are you mentioning it? I am presuming you are trying to make a point of some sort. :) I "thought" you were trying to say that they don't give enough for your liking and I was saying that they give billions.

Isn't it rather obvious that at the corporate level, there is a huge unequal distribution of wealth?

Yes, do you think it should be equal? That is communism. I am not calling you a "Communist" with all the associated negative connotations. :) I am just saying that your words happen to coincide with a communist style of government (minus the violence).

FK: "No, when I said "hurt" I meant physically or financially. Americans have the right to protest, even if it hurts someone else's feelings."

As long as it has nothing to do with feeding a starving illegal alien, because then I would be helping a person steal from a poor American...

No, when you buy food yourself and give it away, you aren't hurting Americans. If anything, you are helping them. Every American's wage that was derived from the preparation of that food for sale was supported by your purchase. Buying food to give to the poor is good for America. It is when one reaches onto the plate of his neighbor and takes away food, like the Cardinal is doing, to give to the poor, that it becomes wrong.

I said I understand the good Cardinal's view, but I also said I didn't condone it. My concern is against laws that charge me with a misdemeanor for helping someone who is hungry or thirsty. What would Jesus do? Would he obey such a law?

You don't condone it??? THIS is what we have been talking about. :) Alright, without me putting words into your mouth, WHY do you not condone what the Cardinal is doing?

In addition, I really do not think you should be at all concerned about that California law. The FIRST time any agency attempts to enforce it will make national headlines. If some idiot prosecutor actually tries it, it will be his funeral. :) If anyone gets in trouble, it will not be for feeding a hungry person, it will be for the other things he does to help an illegal evade the authorities. You and I and Harley and Jesus would all give food to a starving person right in front of us, regardless of the California law.

To be perfectly and brutally honest, I am beginning to question your idea of comfortable Christianity. Is this the result of your self-proclaimed salvation? Is this your faith in action?

I don't know what comfortable Christianity is, so I don't know my idea about it either. :) I do not think Christianity is playing Robin Hood and individually taking from some to give to others, such as what the Cardinal is doing.

It teaches us to take food off OUR table and give to the poor. Or were you not aware of that teaching, either?

I said that was good in my first post on this subject. We are talking about what the Cardinal, and others, are doing. The Cardinal is not only taking food from his own table, but also from all other Americans. You have been defending him, and I disagree. I have used some form of the word "harbor" 100 times, and been clear in what I'm talking about. This is not about giving a glass of water.

I seriously doubt that Christ would cast out an illegal alien, since He had no problems going to ALL members of society, Samaritans, pagans, Pharisees, tax collectors, etc...

That is debatable, as Christ would have the advantage of knowing the person's heart. He certainly would/did send away false seekers. I am sure that He would not support the Robin Hood justice that the Cardinal is practicing.

When did I say I favor harboring illegals, especially who were criminals?

The Cardinal favors harboring any illegal without having any idea if they are criminals, so some must be. You have been defending him throughout this conversation so I assumed you had like views. In this post you are singing a different tune.

abortion is the law, God will judge that nation. If I go in and disobey the law, destroying abortion clinic equipment, then God will judge me.

First of all, God's revelation is that He judges individuals and that we are not held responsible for our ancestors. Secondly, I am DEFINITELY not saying to destroy equipment. I am calling for civil disobedience against laws that we Christians deem as against God's Law. I certainly am not saying we are to sin - "the ends do not justify the means" is a Catholic teaching.

If the government passed a law tomorrow that said Christians could not meet; then I would say that a Christian should do what their heart tells them. However, if the government declared that Islam was the only official religion and that we have to pray to Mecca 5 times a day, I think that would cross the line.

In either case, we are to obey God's Laws, not man's. In both cases, man's law breaks God's Laws and disobeying man's law is not (in either case) against God's Law. In both cases, we are to hold to God's Law because there is a clear choice of following one or the other.

We can legitimately protest for those things we feel strongly about; but I wonder if we understand that the people we're "In your face..." today over a particular issue are the same people we may wish to share the gospel with tomorrow?

Tertullian said that the blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church. That is the point of being a martyr or a confessor. Others are SUPPOSED to see us taking a principled stand in defense of God's Laws. Whenever we reject man's law, we do it non-violently and "meekly" - those who burn abortion clinics are radicals that give non-Christians the wrong impression.

This all is quite interesting, because Scripture does relate without condemning both non-violent and violent response to those who attempt to destroy our faith. I find this highlighted especially in the books of Maccabees. The first book relates and praises active resistance to Hellenistic influences on Judaism, while the second book relates and praises passive resistance - martyrs and such. I think there can be a time for both. As you said, we must discern. I believe the NT condones non-violent disobedience - but their is the whole idea of Just War...

Regards

I disagree that "aiding" an illegal hurts American citizens. That is a long stretch. By the way, I will choose where and whom I will help, if that is alright with you. If it turns out that God sends an illegal alien across my path - and I feed or give them drink - that is the expression of my faith in Him. I am sorry, but if you pick and choose whom you will help, you are just like the Christians whom James chastizes in James 2.

ALL resources are scarce. Any resource that is not scarce would be valueless, and thus free.

There you go again, dealing in extremes. I fail to see your reasoning. Just because resources are plentiful doesn't mean they should be free. Perhaps they will be cheaper, as supply and demand dictates, but free? A bit over the top, don't you think?

How is it your Christian duty to support those who are taking away from me and my neighbors to give to a favored people? You keep using this cloak of "help" as if it doesn't hurt anyone else. In this case, it does. Dollars are a scarce resource. Again, you are presuming that I have set aside "x" dollars of money that I will give to charity, no more, no less. It doesn't work that way. An unplanned-for-opportunity may cause me to open my wallet and give MORE than I had initially planned at the beginning of the month. Also, perhaps I am giving food from MY table, which doesn't cost another charity anything! If I had never met that person, it doesn't mean I would have given it to one of the charities of FK's approved list!

Since you favor illegal immigration and the harboring of them by clergy

I see you are having a difficult time following my arguments. I have not said either of these two above, although you have accused me of this and I have denied it several times now...

Get back with me when you have actually read and understand what I wrote. I don't have time to be continually restating my opinions because you won't read them and prefer to set up a Joe-strawman that you can beat up.

Regards

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.