Skip to comments.Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will
Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
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 On the Freedom of the Will
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.
Luther's Arguments Against Erasmus
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 of the Biblical Texts
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.
The Main Issues and Implications of Each View
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.
The Importance of This Controversy Today
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, your conclusion runs up against 2100 years of scriptural exegesis by The Church. You know, I really think it comes down to those differing understandings of theosis. For us, once one attains theosis, which as I have said is extremely rare in this mortal state, one would be completely safe, but until then one wouldn't be.
I suspect I sound like a broken record, but how could the God bearing Fathers who put the canon of the NT together be so, so wrong in this absolutely vital area? Every single Father, except perhaps +Augustine and arguably Origen (who was condemned for a teaching something like what you are proposing though a bit broader), agrees on this. Much of the Protestant sola scriptura mentality seems founded in a reaction against Rome, the medieval structure and theology of which many extend back in time to at least the Emperor Constantine. In a way I don't blame the Protestants for doing this since if one listened only to Rome for most of the past 600 years one would think that the Church looked like the Church of Alexander VI right back to the Apostles. But that simply isn't true as both history and the writings of the Fathers amply demonstrate. I don't doubt that that is a hard mentality to overcome, but if you desire to understand, if not accept, the theology of The Church on theosis, you have to take off two pairs of glasses; one that of Protestantism and the second a very old medieval Roman pair. I am not suggesting that you will then ipso facto become Orthodox. I am suggesting that you will recognize the innovation which the Reformers wrought. At that point, having compared that innovation with what The Church had uniformly believed up to that point, you can determine if in fact God did something entirely new and innovative through the Reformers.
Well, I don't mind if we have an honest disagreement on interpretation, but I do want to be clear on one thing. I thought your argument was never that the Bible supported a sinless Mary, it was that it didn't prohibit it. The Bible also doesn't prohibit space aliens from coming and living among us. :) So, isn't the best you can hope for that it's possible Mary was sinless? I still don't see anything in the Bible that actively says or suggests that Mary was sinless.
But you said Matthew didn't know. How could he have spent so much time with Jesus and not known whether or not Jesus had biological half-siblings? He must have known. That strengthens the "until" view.
Mary was sinless because reason compels her, as Mother of God, to be, and because that is the simplest conclusion to make from the analogy with the Ark of the Covenant, the verse about the royal gate that opens only once, and the "full of grace" language. It is also a belief that came straight from the apostolic times.
The fact that scripture alone can be interpreted away from the apostolic tradition should not surprise you. We generally don't think that the scripture can even be understood in general terms without it, -- witness all the off-the-cliff apostates who read the scripture as closely as the mariophobes do.
"I still don't see anything in the Bible that actively says or suggests that Mary was sinless."
I'm off to the priest's house for a little snake bite medicine, so I'll probably comment at length later, but you might be interested to know that +John Chrysostomos agreed with you and believed she did sin at least once, at the Wedding Feast at Cana. The Church and the other Fathers reject that.
First, following Jesus in his adult ministry did not entitle Matthew to any particular insight into Mary's precise relation to the "brothers" of Jesus. Second, it was simply not Matthew's focus, in either of the passages, to convey either knowledge or speculation that he might have had.
I disagree. Paul is not talking about before salvation and after salvation. That is a just not there in the text! The words are never mentioned. Consider reading Romans 2 and 3 again. Paul is not talking about people before they are saved are wicked! First of all, Romans 2 shows that people have a law written on their hearts (placed there by God). Consider the following passage:
Tribulation and anguish [shall be] upon every human soul that does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek; but glory, honour, and peace to everyone that works good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified; for when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature that which is of the law, these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, accusing and also excusing their reasonings one with another) Romans 2:9-14
First, even the saved Jew, the one who proudly bragged about their law, will be judged on whether they do evil. They are not saved by being born of the flesh of Abraham. That includes Greeks, as well. See, the judgment is based on whether one does good or not and this includes Greeks! Note, Paul attacks the source of pride of the Judaizers, the Law. as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law. The doers of the Law will be justified, not just those who hear it. Jesus Himself says this in Matthew 7:21:
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in the heavens
Next, we have the Law written even on the Gentiles hearts our conscience. It is placed there by God. If we obey it, if we fulfill this Law written on our hearts, we will be justified, as Paul says. And of course, this presumes that it is done in Christ even those who do NOT know Christ (those who love know God). So what Paul is saying is summed up at the end of Romans 2:
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is circumcision that which is done outwardly in the flesh, but he [is] a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit [and] not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God
Thus, a saved person, one of God, a son of Abraham by faith, is not of the flesh, but of the spirit one who walks in faith. Whether a person follows the Decalogue and the Mosaic Law, or whether one follows the Law written on their hearts, a person IS A JEW, one of the people of God a member of the Church, as I have described so long ago.
In Romans 3, Paul continues his assault on the proud Jews who think they are saved because they are of the flesh of Abraham. He brings up a veritable litany from the Old Testament Psalms. Unless you read the context of those Psalms, you will become confused and will not get what Paul is talking about. In each case, Paul is quoting many Psalms written by David against JEWS. There were wicked Jews pursuing David, and David wrote Psalms against them, saying that they never followed God, that they were foolish, etc. Use your Bible and go to those Psalms noted in Romans 3. You will find in each case that it is Paul charging the saved Jews of being wicked, just as David did 1000 years before. THEY were wicked while the Gentiles were open to the Word of God.
Continuing in Chapter 4, Paul delivers the coup de grace by reminding them that Abraham was declared righteous BEFORE he was circumcised, the ultimate initiation ritual for the Jew, what separated them from the Gentile. By pointing out the futility of relying on their human heritage to show they were saved, Paul points to the REAL message of the Bible (even the OT), that man is saved by Faith in God
All this other stuff that ALL men are evil and do not follow God totally misses the point of Romans 2-4 and Pauls attack on the self-righteous Judaizers. Paul is merely quoting OT Scriptures to point out that the Jews were no better than the Gentiles as a group. Look again to Romans 2 and the quote above and you will find that is the premise of Pauls discussion in this section.
No one is righteous in his nature when born. All of the elect are righteous in God's sight after salvation. No wicked person would ever seek out the Lord. God gives grace to those whom He will, and then they seek the Lord.
True. But it is not what Paul is talking about here.
But your whole argument is based on silence, (regarding Mary) isn't it? The standard for you is much stricter because you are making the positive argument. You are saying "look at all this non-evidence, therefore it must be so." :) Just in your above, you use "if" for two ideas, and "perhaps" for two conclusions.
No. Catholics use many arguments that converge to tell us that Mary was sinless. We do not rely solely on the absence of something in Scripture to point out that Mary is a sinner because it doesnt specifically state that. That is an argument from silence. There is no other evidence to prove that statement, thus, it rests totally on the lack of evidence, a logical fallacy. We, on the other hand, utilize the various writings of men to ascertain what the common beliefs of the time were. How did Christians consider Mary during the first few centuries? In the writings of the first Christians, we note that men are mulling more profoundly over that treasure called the Apostolic Teachings both Scripture and Tradition to mine the meanings of what God gave men. We see evidence that notes, from different sources, that Mary was considered special, not only in Scripture, but in the Apostolic Tradition and writings that followed. Thus, we use inferential evidence to determine that Mary is sinless, rather than empirical.
I wrote : Paul does NOT say that Jesus is the only sinless person in Romans 3. Thus, Paul (and the Spirit) leave room for exceptions to the universal "all".
You responded : An argument from silence is a lousy argument. ... :)
LOL! Thats not an argument from silence as elsewhere in Scripture, we KNOW that Paul doesnt mean that Jesus has sinned:
For we [do] not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted like as [we are], yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15
Thus, we infer that Paul cannot mean that All is universal, because elsewhere, Jesus is mentioned as being sinless. Since Scripture cannot contradict, we infer that Paul has exceptions in mind.
Brother in Christ
Re: my post #2,555 "Some Orthodox even point to the fact that she may have sinned (the incident at the wedding party when Christ turned water into wine), but these are private opinions and not doctrinal statements." (Kolo you were not pinged on that one, but I am glad you brought this up independently).
kosta-"That's odd, coming from a Calvinist..."
HarleyD - "Not really. God made all of us exactly as we are. There is not one thing that you have that has not been given you by God including your hopes, desires, faith, etc. God fashioned each of us according to His purpose."
Right. Harley, I take your statements to mean that only the elect will ever WANT to know God. God gives this grace only to His elect. All others will never have the desire to know God, because it is not in man's sinful nature to seek God. Therefore, all get what they want.
Yes. Amazingly there are some who witnessed God before them such as the Jews before Mount Sinai, Balaam or Belshazzar yet they never came to a saving knowledge. It is also interesting that the rich man in the flames of torment never asked Abraham to intercede before God for him. As strange as this may sound I believe he was right where he wanted to be.
Except that what you are saying is an oxymoron -- based on what you tell me about your theology: that man could not have wanted to be anywhere, for that would imply that he had decided his fate by his own choice. I think you need to rephrase your statement to read "he was right where God wanted him to be."
Whether a slave to righteousness or to sin, yout theoogy says it's all God's doing. In either case our minds are captive to God's will -- and therefore whether evil or good, it must all be "good". Such is the nonsense you convey.
This is what Thomas Merton, a late Catholic monk, in his book New Seeds of Contemplation (1961], says about this:
In our understanding, someone "full of grace" is someone without sin, as much as humanly possible, and fitting to be the vessel pure enough for God to use for His own Son. So, while the Scripture does not directly mention her sinless life, the only reasonable understanding of being "full of grace" is that she was without sin.
Assuming that the vast majority of Orthodox go through Chrismation as infants, is there the presumption that they will receive the same training as the convert as they grow up? I ask because I know it's true that so many Protestants are baptized as infants and then never get much, if any, training in the faith. (That was my case.) The Southern Baptists were the first people I found that were really SERIOUS about Sunday school for both children and adults. Do you all have this or an equivalent?
FK, there isn't enough bandwidth on FR to even scratch the surface of Orthodox theology on prayer like what you call the "sinner's prayer". FK, theosis is all but impossible without a continual "sinner's prayer" on our parts!
That's great! I knew you wouldn't object to it, but it's great to hear how much you actively embrace its equivalent.
I don't think I'm confusing anything, I just think we use the word differently. That's OK.
Although you said you didn't respect your children [as newborns], but loved them nonetheless, I say you are deceiving yourself because you did respect their humanity, their space, and their rights.
Same thing. Yes, I "respect" the FACT that they are humans, but that is using the word in a completely different sense. I thought you were saying that God has "respect" for us because of merit, but you're saying that is not the case. Why am I wrong to use "respect" in human terms? Is there Biblical support for God "respecting" us?
BTW, regarding my (now) teenagers, I actually have zero "respect" for their space or their rights! As a benevolent dictator, I will allow them to make certain mistakes, even if I know in advance and can prevent it. This is how they will learn some very valuable lessons. However, on any serious matter, or if any injury might be involved, then I will disrespect their spaces, rights, and anything else in order to save them from themselves. This has already happened with both of them. :)
How does it challenge God's sovereignty if we know we are of the elect? Our side would say that God wants us to know, and live in assurance. "If God is with us, then who can be against us?" (Rom. 8:31), and so forth. That strengthens our faith and helps empower us to obey (love) Him.
Amen. Either Christ died for our sins, or He didn't.
If Christ died for our sins, we are saved already because He has paid the price for our redemption. We stand acquitted before God and blameless because He took on the burden of our guilt and absolved us of it when He died in our place.
These things happened. They are real. Christ rose from the dead. He accomplished what He came to earth to do -- He redeemed His sheep, past, present and future.
"When God calls a sinner, He does not repent of it. God does not, as many friends do, love one day and hate another; or as princes, who make their subjects favorites and afterwards throw them into prison. This is the blessedness of a saint; his condition admits of no altercation. God's call is founded upon His decree, and His decree is immutable. Acts of grace cannot be reversed. God blots out His people's sins, but not their names." -- THOMAS WATSON
A megalomaniac is one who is delusional with his self-perceived omnipotence. I assure you I do not accuse God of that! :) "Exalted" is a tricky word and can have different meanings in different contexts.
Clearly, Jesus does recognize and praise several demonstrations of faith in the Gospels. I know that. My only point is to remember that it is God who made it all happen.
Really, who takes away from the Creator by complementing the creation? When I build a chair, and someone says, "that's a nice chair", do I get upset, demanding that I get all of the credit, or is it understood that I am being praised THROUGH the chair? It is the same thing with humans.
NO! It is not the same thing at all with humans. :) For your analogy to carry, it would have to be another chair praising the first chair. This is because you are the creator of the chair, and the person praising it would be another human, an equal. God has no equal to praise His work.
There is nothing wrong with the second chair complimenting the creator (you) on your work, but it should appreciate that you also created it, and know that all the credit for both chairs goes to you. The second chair should know that the first chair did nothing toward its creation or its beauty.
Really, you have a misplaced idea of God's sovereignty. You seem to believe that because we PARTICIPATE, that means that God does 98% and we do 2% on our own! Hardly!
When you say "Hardly!", I couldn't agree more. You short-changed God by 2%. :)
I had thought that common sense - having thousands of different denominations that all equally claim to be led by the Spirit - would be enough for you to determine that the Spirit does not lead on the dogmatic front to individuals.
Oh, come on! Are you really one of those who says there are "thousands" of different Protestant denominations? That's bogus. The biased only count it that way because of our autonomy. So if my church performs the Lord's Supper once per month, and the next SB church down the street does it twice per month, then it's considered two totally different faiths. That's ridiculous. While I do admit there are sometimes important variations in theology, the basic core beliefs cannot possibly be split up as you suggest. I maintain that the Holy Spirit does lead individuals.
The oral teachings and practice of the communities determined HOW to read Scripture when Scripture was not so clear - or even when it seemed so to many people.
This is a main protest I have. You are stating openly what I have been gathering. Tradition trumps scripture! You cannot take scripture on its face. You must filter it through the Church's lens to arrive at an interpretation that matches tradition. It is the scriptural meaning that changes, not the tradition. That is the only way HOW to read scripture.
WHO wrote the Scriptures? You seem to have a problem remembering that the Apostles wrote it AFTER they had been teaching people for YEARS! Of course the Bible is to be read through these conditions.
No, I remember that, I just don't trust people playing the telephone game with doctrine that is not in the Bible. If you're right, then it goes back to my assertion that God was the most cryptic author in the history of literature. I don't know why He would speak in such riddles to His own beloved, except that a tiny few men might explain it to us. Again, by your arguments, the Bible wasn't written for us at all.
FK: "If you believe that "anyone" could come up with a book like the Bible, then I don't know what to say. I don't believe anyone could."
Really? A lot of people are absolutely convinced that the Koran is the Word of God. A lot of people believe that the Book of Mormons is from God. I could write a letter, sprinkle some "thus says the Lord" with some general prophesies (some of which are bound to come true), and I'd have a so-called inspired book from God!
But you evaded my question. Is the Koran or the LDS bible "like" the Holy Bible? We both know that billions have been fooled with false teaching. God told us it would be so. Honestly now, how many DEVOUT Muslims and Mormons do you expect to see in Heaven? Scripture tells you the answer plainly. My answer would be "extremely few".
I laugh when you repeat that you "could write a letter...". From my understanding, that is exactly what L. Ron Hubbard did! And today millions are fooled, and sadly, they are also lost. I believe that it is only God's grace that showed us both that all of these other teachings were false. Without it, one might seem as good as another. God gave us the grace to know.
Jesus didn't write the Bible! See what I mean? You are drilled so heavily on this stuff that you can't identify for yourself that the Bible takes outside verification to prove its claim! Anyone can write a book with "thus says the Lord". Only people on the ground can determine the truth of it or not.
The Word didn't author the word? That seems odd. The Bible does have plenty of outside verification to authenticate it, but none of it is needed. I don't agree that people need to determine the truth of the Bible. Truth is truth. People need to discover the truth that is already there. The difference is that with "determine" there is a human component. The truth of the Bible does not depend on man accepting it.
The reason why you know the Bible is from God is because the Catholic Church says it is and the Protestants unwittingly follow in step to that claim, not realizing the irony that they rely on the Church's determination of authority, while casting aside its authority to teach that very same book! Go figure.
That can't be right, because I still believe the Bible is self-authenticating. I don't begrudge that the Catholic Church said the Bible was God's word first, I'm glad she did! But, it really is true that when I accepted it, I didn't know anything about Church history or that Catholics put it together, or any of it. I was taught that the Bible was God's inerrant word, and I had read enough chapters, and seen the wisdom and internal consistency, and so I believed. We believe the Bible authenticates itself apart from the RCC, so there is no irony.
Read the Gospels, brother. Notice how the Pharisees act, those who "knew" they were saved. Read the letters of Paul. Notice how he attacks the Judaizers, those who "knew" they were saved.
Are you saying that all are saved, then? Since Christ died for the sin of the whole world, does this mean that everyone is saved?
"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29
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.