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.

Why are sins against the Third Person of the Trinity unforgiveable, while against the Other Two can be forgiven?

I was just thinking of the following two passages, not being sure about what they meant:

Mark 3:28-29 : 28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Matt. 12:31-32 : 31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

---------------

As to Protestantism, I find the Scriptures tell us to avoid divisiveness - not to proclaim ourselves the interpreter of Divine Word that disagrees with the community's interpretations.

Scriptures may tell us that divisiveness should be avoided, as an ideal, but there is precedent that divisiveness can be for the good. ... Sodom also must have had a community interpretation of God. That didn't make them right. I still don't believe that popularity equals truth.

It should be readily apparent that we continue to battle the flesh, the old nature. Thus, we haven't "exchanged" our old self for a new self to completion yet. Yes, justification, how God views us, changes depending on our battle with this flesh.

So what is your interpretation of this verse? :

2 Cor. 5:17 : Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

Your interpretation must be that no one is in Christ during his physical life on earth, right? Or, I suppose you will say that people are in Christ sometimes and out of Christ at other times. Sometimes we are a new creation, but some other times we give that new creation up and go back to our old creation. Then we go back to the new creation again, and so forth throughout our lives. Do you really think a person who has no idea of Tradition, could possibly come to that conclusion from reading this verse?

Baptism does more than wash our sins away. It makes us children of God and begins our sanctification process. Our conversion to Christ begins. While mortal sin separates us from God, we have been given an experience that cannot be taken away. We have the seal of the Spirit.

I wasn't aware of the extra significance, so thanks for the clarification. But as (I think) we discussed, for you the holy "seal of the Spirit" is really more like a post-it note that can be torn off and stuck back on again over and over, as the situation warrants.

All of your Scripture quotes [about the nature of hell] can be taken in the spiritual sense.

As I have learned on this thread, scripture quotes can be taken in any way whatsoever, depending on the interpreter. Do you have an opinion on the physicality of hell?

"I have tried in some earlier posts to describe some of the broad concepts of Platonic thinking."

I'm well aware of the broad concepts of Platonic thinking. What I want some specifics of is what it is in Orthodox belief and practice that you see as being Platonic and contrary to Christian revelation. You apparently are under the impression that by describing Platonism in broad terms like "the One and the Many", I will recognize my faith in your descriptions. I do not.

"I suppose we will need to debate whether Plato's concept of the One and the Many was stolen by him through Moses..."

There certainly were those who claimed that Plato, because of the fact that he is the Greek philosopher whose thinking seems most to have elements of truth from a Christian perspective, must have been exposed to the writings of Moses and the Hebrew tradition in general. While it is not an idea that can be either embraced or dismissed out of hand, I am unaware that Orthodoxy ever came down on the side of this idea.

"...or to what extent the concepts themselves are true to the Judeiac-Christian tradition."

I don't think that we in Orthodoxy would frame it in quite that way. There is certainly no reason to think of pagan philosophical concepts as being either faithful or unfaithful to Hebrew ones.

There was, however, an idea in the early Christian fathers of the "protoevangelion," namely that God was at work in Gentile cultures, preparing thought and language for being able to receive and accept the Christian revelation. I don't think that there is much question that the Greek world post-Plato was far more in a position to be receptive to Christian revelation than was the Greek world of, say the days of Homer or even of a couple of centuries prior to Plato.

The Greek language was certainly in a position to express the Hebrew/Christian revelation, as is witnessed by the New Testament. If the use of terms from Platonism means that Platonic concepts are being superimposed on the Hebraic religion, then culprit number one is St. John, with his "in the beginning was the Logos..." Not to mention St. Paul talking on Mars Hill or quoting pagan poets in his epistles.

Similar preparation seems to have taken place in other pagan societies, given the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the world. To avoid all appearance of borrowing from pagan philosophy, the New Testament would have to have been written and discussed purely in Hebrew, and perhaps all Mosaic ritual law would have had to have been preserved.

"The difference in our understanding of worship lies in our base philosophical differences. In your case it is a matter of man raising himself to God and in my case it is trying to obey God's own revealed form of worship."

We certainly would not describe the point of the Christian spiritual life as "man raising himself up to God." This implies that the changes brought about are ultimately from our own powers, rather than from the grace of God. We rather believe that the acts of our free will in turning our face toward God opens us to the action of the Holy Spirit, just as whether the children of Israel in the desert turned to look at the brazen serpent on the pole determined whether they lived or died. They just had to turn their faces and look -- God did the rest.

Regarding worship, our own approach is very close to what you describe about your own. I would rather describe it more as follows: Orthodox worship is about joining ourselves to the prayers of the Church, which are a part of Christian revelation. These prayers of the Church, starting first and foremost with the words of Scripture, which comprise the vast majority of text in our services, shape our minds and teach us how to pray.

Christ said "after this manner, pray..." The story of Orthodox worship is the continuation of this principle. By joining ourselves to the words of the Church, our minds are shaped by Christ, and we begin to acquire "the mind of Christ." We actively learn the process of submitting our human wills to the divine will, just as Christ showed us with his "not my will, but thine be done."

This is quite a different emphasis from that of "somehow the Church through its rituals is the mediator of the One and the Many..."

You describe your worship as obedience. We would describe ours as that as well, but also as more than that: a joining in to the heavenly Liturgy, experiencing a true "communion of the saints." There is nothing depersonalizing about this -- quite the contrary. Everything in Orthodox worship is personal, as I have stated before. Every Mystery (sacrament) of the church involves the speaking of the name of the person receiving that Mystery. When we receive communion, the priest says "The servant of God N. partakes of the precious and all-holy Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, unto the remission of sins and unto life everlasting." If the priest doesn't know the communicant approaching him and the person doesn't offer his Christian name, the priest will ask for it. Nothing is impersonal. To me, there is nothing quite so striking about Orthodox faith and worship as the sheer specificity and personalness of it, as I have said before.

We are many members, yet part of the one body of Christ -- if this is a Platonic act of the many reaching for the One, then so is the New Testament teaching.

We certainly can start a new thread at some point. I'll look about for a good article to start the discussion on Platonism and Orthodoxy, and we'll see if anyone other than you and me show up! :-)

Consider so many of our teachings go back nearly 2000 years, even when culture has tried to sweep them away (referring specifically to abortion and contraception)

From what I know, I would give you all an 'A' on abortion, but as to contraception, you can't tell me that Church enforcement of its teachings hasn't been significantly affected by culture.

Some lady wanted to do that [believer's Baptism] 2 years ago. We told her that we believe in ONE baptism. Nothing further is gained by being baptised again, nor is sin remitted AGAIN through this ritual.

Thanks for relaying the story. One thing that we agree on is that it is unnecessary to repeat Baptism. ... I have never heard of "conditional" Baptisms, but I can see the legitimate need, given certain circumstances. ... I am sorry to hear that so many in your class have been ostracized by their parents. In all honesty, I wouldn't "approve", but I wouldn't turn my back on my child over it. That's ridiculous.

FK: "God, by Himself, caused the Bible to come into existence."

Says who? You? How did you come to that conclusion? "God told you?" See where that leads you?

Yes, I see where that leads me. The only other possible conclusion is that man had a part in causing the Bible to come into existence. This would subject it to error. I do not believe that man can simply choose to be perfect. It sounds like you do. The only way the Bible can be inerrant is if God was in full control of its creation. If you believe that perfect, sinless men also threw in their own two cents then we just disagree.

If you believe [my vision] needs correction, perhaps you should look to history and figure out which "vision" came first?

The vision of the Gnostics was before yours, and look how well that turned out.

Which "vision" was closest to the original writers of the Scriptures?

That is debatable, but probably unknowable as between us because we couldn't begin to agree on proper sourcing.

Was your "vision" readily believed by other Christians throughout 1500 years?

Augustine would certainly be on board for some of it, which tells me there must have been many others, to varying degrees. We do have 500 years to our credit, which includes the modern age, an age I believe has exponentially increased in critical theological thinking. It has thus, "withstood the test of time".

FK: "In your example, I would say you are wrong because God did not move the Church to include it in the Bible, and because it contains contradictions to other scripture that God did move the Church to include in the Bible."

But you are now using the Church as a reference to determine what is Scripture!

Not at all, see the words that I used. I know that members of the Church were the physical assemblers of the Bible, but in what I said, God is the only real actor. I do not believe that the assemblers had any independent voice on their own as to what would ultimately become the Bible. I believe it was all God's doing.

Therefore, God actively uses false stories, LIES, to give your leaders spiritual truth. The only alternative is that God was not the final editor of the Bible, and it just turned out the way it did through men's decisions. I admit I have never heard of this view before

Let me put it this way, you know the parable about the mustard seed. That seed is not the smallest seed that exists and a mustard plant does not become a tree. Nevertheless, that was not the point of the parable. The truth of the parable was revealed by God, the story was recounted as known to the author.

If you read some of the "science" in the Bible it is obvious that either God was telling us lies or that the authors simply didn't know the world as we know it. I would say definitely the latter. God reveals the spiritual truth and those who are inspired write according to their human faculty and language constraints to express that truth.

That's why in the Bible the earth has "ends" and "corners" and hares chew cud, and bats are "birds," and mustard seed is the smallest seed -- certainly God knows that this is not so, therefore He did not put those in the Bible. The inspired authors did to the best of their knowledge.

If Bible were to be the source of physical, zoological and astronomical truths, it would have said such unbelievable things that the earth is round and that people stand upside downs on opposite poles but don't fall off, that there are no corners, that we go around the Sun, that there are such birds as penguins, that bats are not birds, that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed and does not grow into a tree, that illnesses are not caused by demons, etc. Human discoveries would have only confirmed the "ubelievable" things stated in the Bible instead of revealing a completely different world.

The fact that we discovered all these things that seem to contradict the Bible means that these were put into the Bible by the authors who didn't know better and couldn't possibly have known what we know today to be fact.

In 1978, in Chicago, conservative evangelicals issued a common statement on Biblical inerrancy in response to many liberal trends of the day. Part of their statement reads:

"Also, inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts (which no longer exist, but can be inferred on the basis of extant copies), not to the copies or translations themselves."

If you read Vatican II's carefully stated Dei Verbum on biblical inerrancy"everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit," you discover that the language falls short of factual claims.

One does not have to be a scholar to understand that "assertion" is not the same as "fact." It merely means that something is stated positively or assertively, as in asserting one's innocence (without proof).

Inability to distinguish inspired author's spiritual assertions, which we know in our hearts to be true, and their own world knowledge which reflects their place in time and geography, has led to anti-biblical tendencies that have culminated in the 20th century with the rise of communism and general decline of morals and religion, especially in Europe.

The impression, ever since Galileo, is that the Bible "lied" to us about the world and therefore must have lied to us about everything else. That's why bible inconsistencies are used primarily by various agnostic and atheist groups. The fact that Galileo didn't get a pardon for his "heresies" for 350 years doesn't make a good cause for the Church. The fact that we discovered that plagues are not God's wrath and neither is lightening, and that the world is round and that we go around the Sun and not the other way around, that bats are not birds, that hares don't chew cud, etc. does not help those who claim that everything in the Bible is true, because apparently it isn't so.

"If the writers were free to deviate from facts, then why were they not also free to deviate in spiritual truth?"

God utilized the literary genres that human writers used, the human knowledge that they had, to reveal to mankind what HE wanted to tell man. Thus, the Bible, while having historical writings, is not MEANT to be a historical piece of work. It is a theological work with a historical background. Even the historical writings are done with a theological spin or interpretation on them. "Why did Jerusalem get overrun by the Babylonians?" Because the Jews had sinned - NOT because Babylon was more powerful militarily. Rather than worry about the human shell of the Scriptures, we should look to God's intent of the message.

Another example is "Was the earth created in 6 days?" It depends on whether one takes the inspired writer's litarary genre as a scientific tract, or as a literary work of art that conveys the message that God wanted to reveal - that He is the creator of the universe who loves the pinnacle of His visible creation, mankind.

In the end, the Scriptures are inerrant, NOT because EVERY piece of information is absolutely historically accurate, but because EVERYTHING that God wanted to tell mankind is infallible. We don't presume that God was trying to write ancient Jewish history - but Jewish theological development and God's actions among His people. THIS is inerrant. Through the community and the presence of the Holy Spirit, the Sacred Scriptures help convey God's Word for the people of TODAY. Thus, the Book, in the hands of the community, continues to give God's intended message to His people, the Church. This is why it is so important to read the Scriptures WITH the People of God, the Church.

Regards

The problem with Brenton, though, is that it relies almost exclusively on Codex Vaticanus, with a little input from the other major uncials

The only copy of LXX that is positively corroborated with Dead Sea Scrolls (and disagree with Hebrew Masoretic Text) is the oldest version of LXX. Whether such version exists on the Internet or not is a question, and I assume that you have a translation at home.

If what you say is true, this is the first time that I hear that Brenton's is a "misleading" copy. Does this Orthodox Church make any statements to that effect?

Regardless, my point was from the beginning that various copies contain various statements, even different pararaphs, different lengths of the same books, and that the Bible is doctored and redacted, (mis)translated and altered and that there are no originals available to corroborate what is what. Obviously, not one of these copies can make a claim that it is the one true copy and that everything in it is true, just as God wanted it.

The devil is in the details, Agrarian. Perhaps such little details as Michal's children (why would Melchol be something you need to mention -- Isaiah is not Isaiah in Hebrew) or lack thereof shows the all bibles are not the same, and do not convey the same information. If one is going to believe everything in the Bible as God's truth than one must assume that the other copies do not meet that criteria because they say different things.

LXX is the oldest copy of complete Five Books of Moses, Catholics accept it only partially, and Protestants have rejected in outright. So have the Jews. Yet, you are using LXX to show that Protestant's claims, based on Hebrew MT, prove LXX is right, and Jerome, who used partially the MT is wrong. Strange indeed.

From "The Inerrancy of the Autographa", by Greg Bahnsen...

"Throughout its record the Bible presupposes its own authority. For instance, the Old Testament is often cited in the New Testament with such formulas as “God says” or “the Holy Spirit says” (as in Acts 1:16; 3:24-25; 2 Cor. 6:16). What Scripture says is identified with what God says (e.g., Gal. 3:8; Rom. 9:16). For that reason all theological arguments are settled decisively by the inherent authority signified in the formula “it stands written” (literal translation). The same authority attaches to the writings of the apostles (1 Cor. 15:1-2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:14), since these writings are placed on a par with the Old Testament Scriptures (2 peter 3:15-16; Rev. 1:3). Apostolic Scripture often has the common formula “it stands written” applied to it (e.g., John 20:31). Therefore the Old and New Testaments are presented in the Bible itself as the authoritative, written, Word of God."

I find this an interesting paragraph, given that the Scriptures Bahnsen cites, 2 Thes 2:15 and 1 Cor 15:1-2, refers to ORAL teachings. Is Bahnsen thus telling us implicitly that the Apostles' TEACHINGS (not just written) were considered inspired? A read of the Scriptures should yield this conclusion. It is not a matter of something being WRITTEN that gives it authority, but its ACCEPTANCE by the COMMUNITY at large. Bahsen writes from the mistaken presumption when interpretating early Christianity. ANYTHING from the Apostles was considered authoritative by the Christian community - whether written or orally transmitted. Something being written did NOT give something authority over something NOT written.

This makes sense, given Christianity is NOT a religion of the book, like Judaism. It is a religion of divine revelation given through a person, Jesus Christ - who passed His teachings orally to Apostles who claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the MEANS of transmission is inconsequential to the first Christians. This is something that most Protestants fail to understand.

Regards

I have no way of proving whether it is accurate or not. I do know that it reflects the traditional readings of the Orthodox LXX manuscripts, and that this account makes perfect sense. The Orthodox Church takes the practical stance that the Scriptures that matter are the ones that have been passed down in living tradition within the Church, which the Holy Spirit has never left.

If you believe, as did Wellhausen and the other modern textual scholars, that the OT is a poorly put together patchwork of human writings that were not written or compiled with Divine inspiration, then you will actually believe that the more contradictory the passages are, the more likely they are to be older and truer reflections of the original fragments of human writings that were compiled by later Jewish scribes.

If, on the other hand, you believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," as St. Paul says, then it is certainly reasonable to believe that accounts that can make sense are reasonable ones to trust.

I see no compelling reason to disbelieve the Orthodox LXX tradition on this particular trivial issue.

I will comment more on the "original autograph" issue later today.

I find this an interesting paragraph, given that the Scriptures Bahnsen cites, 2 Thes 2:15 and 1 Cor 15:1-2, refers to ORAL teachings.

Bahnsen very briefly touches on this in his article by making the statement:

However, the focus of this paper isn't a discussion of oral versus the written word. It is about why the Church/church has accepted and argued for the inerrancy of the Autographa and what precisely does that mean.

But, as an aside, I would argue that it's from this inerrant scripture the policies of the Church are established and measured against. For example, the Catholic Church states it's wrong to murder because it says so in scripture-not because a church father states it's wrong to murder or that it's "tradition" to believe murder is wrong. Abortion is wrong to the Church because the Church interprets the fetus as life and aborting it is murdering life. They would probably use the same scripture to verify their policy or, at least, point to some church father who pointed to another who pointed to another who pointed to scripture. I'm confident this is the way the Church works and that I would hope most Catholics would agree with me.

In the end it comes back to the written word of God.

Bahnsen very briefly touches on this (oral traditions) in his article by making the statement:

The drawback to having revelation in oral form (or tradition) is that it is much more subject to various kinds of corrupting influences that stem from man’s imperfect abilities and sinful nature (e.g., lapses of memory and intentional distortion). To curb these forces, taught Kuyper, God cast His word into written form – thereby achieving greater durability, fixity, purity, and catholicity.[8] A written document is capable of universal distribution through repeated copying, and yet it can be preserved in various kinds of depositories from generation to generation. As such it can function both as a fixed standard by which to test all doctrines of men and as a pure guide to the way of life.

I agree with his intent. However, his is not the Catholic understanding of "Apostolic Tradition". We don't believe that "oral tradition" is equal to Apostolic Tradition. An example is infant baptism. Clearly, the Bible does not come down on one side or the other. It is ambiguous from the Bible alone. However, the Apostles are credited by Church Fathers who WRITE DOWN that infant baptism is "an ancient teaching from the Apostles". Considering that Christianity is a revealed religion whose doctrines and beliefs we have obtained from the Apostles, it SHOULD not matter in what format the teaching came to us - as long as we can identify its source. Note, infant baptism is a belief of the Church that is traced back - in writing - to before 200 AD.

This is not an uncommon misunderstanding of the Church's teachings. "Apostolic Teachings" are NOT "oral" teachings for all time - but rather, teachings that were not clear and explicit in Scriptures, but clarified (in writing!) by a subsequent generation of Christians who claimed that said teachings were Apostolic - and they were accepted universally as such by the Community of faith, the Church. Thus, Catholics hold to the Apostles' teachings, whether they were given in written form, or orally, and subsequently written down OUTSIDE of Sacred Scriptures.

I would argue that it's from this inerrant scripture the policies of the Church are established and measured against. For example, the Catholic Church states it's wrong to murder because it says so in scripture-not because a church father states it's wrong to murder or that it's "tradition" to believe murder is wrong. Abortion is wrong to the Church because the Church interprets the fetus as life and aborting it is murdering life.

Actually, BOTH are used by the Church in forming its moral dogmatic teachings. The Church doesn't go to ONLY the Scriptures to know that murder is sinful. The basic law is there, given by Moses, sure enough. However - and here is the heart of the matter - the TRADITION is utilized to determine what "TODAY'S" People are to follow. The "mind" of the Church is formed by the Scriptures and its CURRENT and PAST reading of it! Our faith is formed by the people of God's reading of these same Scriptures - past and present. The Tradition represents how they read it in the past. This provides continuity in the faith, something sadly lacking in Protestantism, because they have "no" tradition (they do, but it is not common, except Sola Scriptura itself). In the example you give above, the Church uses its Tradition to rule infallibly that abortion is wrong SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE the Church has ALWAYS interpreted abortion as murder. The Bible doesn't specifically talk about abortion. But the People of God, reading Scripture, considering their Tradition received, have judged that abortion IS murder. This is the Holy Spirit guiding the Church, guiding the Church Fathers and the community as a whole. Thus, WITH Apostolic Tradition, we are better able to see how abortion is and will always be a grevious sin.

And finally, the Magesterium is necessary to help interpet the Scriptures and Tradition in light of modern problems that the People of God run into - such as embroyic stem-cell research. Scripture doesn't mention it, nor does Tradition. However, by looking to our faith as it has developed, the teaching authority of the Church can determine what we TODAY are to do in considering what is the Will of God on such questions. The Scriptures are timeless and are meant to be read by peoples of all ages. However, they are also to be read in light of the People of God's paradigm, their manner of looking at the Scriptures themselves.

I'm confident this is the way the Church works and that I would hope most Catholics would agree with me.

The Church considers the Scriptures as being inspired by God and inerrant. But it is not a systematic textbook. There are a lot of matters that are ambiguous when read OUTSIDE of the Church's own understanding - such as free will or abortion.

Regards

What exactly happens as the result of Adam's sin? WE are born WITHOUT something. Our nature is not "changed" per sec. We are MISSING something. Our nature is incomplete. What are we missing? We are missing God's Sanctifying Presence. This presence is absolutely necessary to enter heaven.

Now wait a minute. :) Adam's sin causes us to be without something we otherwise would have had through him, right? That thing is Sanctifying Presence, as you say. So, Adam had it and lost it. Therefore, we are not born with it. You do not consider this to be change? I do.

To further discuss, what is necessary for man to do good deeds? God, correct? Well, without God, our nature cannot come to do these things. Thus, again, our nature ITSELF is not sinful - but without the fuel, our car won't move towards God. Christ is our fuel. His presence among us enables us to do the good that He commands us.

I don't see how our nature not being able to come to God by itself equates to it not being sinful. It is sinful, therefore we cannot come to God by ourselves. By ourselves, we do not stand still. Our car does have fuel and actively moves toward sin because it is sinful. If we just chose nothing then there would be no fuel and your analogy might work.

The old will never be GONE until we are in heaven. Paul admits this much in Romans 7.

Not ever completely gone, but nonetheless gone substantially. That is an evidence of salvation and a truly regenerated heart.

Why would the Spirit need to pray for us if "all is finished"?

The Spirit leads us through sanctification and ensures that it happens. The Spirit guides us in prayer and prays for us, especially when we don't even know what to pray for. Without the Spirit we could not persevere.

HOW can a person ASK for forgiveness WITHOUT God, and WHY wouldn't God forgive someone who ASKED for forgiveness. I found this an interesting admission.

A person cannot truly ask for forgiveness without God. However, anyone can say the words "Lord, forgive me", just like they can say "Lord, Lord.". Without God, that is not truly asking for forgiveness and that person will not be forgiven. Of course the Bible teaches that anyone who does ask with God will be forgiven.

Isn't it clear from Scripture that God turns His face from those who turn away from God? I have given you ample Scriptures that detail how God condemns people AFTER they have been "saved", whether Jews or Christians.

Sure God turns away from those who reject Him. However, this comes again to our differences as to what salvation is. I don't think the Jews who died in the desert were ever saved, if they were killed for their transgressions. I do not think their faith was true. They were pretenders. ... Paul correctly reiterates that perseverance is necessary.

Actually, BOTH are used by the Church in forming its moral dogmatic teachings....However - and here is the heart of the matter - the TRADITION is utilized to determine what "TODAY'S" People are to follow.

What is really in your statement is that you take what is written in scripture and apply what others have stated before you to arrive at some conclusion. This isn't any different than Protestants-except we come to different conclusions. You would probably add that you have the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. I would say that doesn't matter since the Church has, in the past, misinterpreted scripture. For example the Orthodox Church has formulated policies and have come to different conclusions based upon the scriptures such as the authority of the Pope or the Nicene Creed. Who's right? I'm sure they would say they are following the traditions of the Church as well. And then there is that matter of paying for indulgences that got a group of people all riled up.

In the end the only way erroneous doctrine can be discovered and agreed that it is erroneous is through the scriptures.

Adam's sin causes us to be without something we otherwise would have had through him, right? That thing is Sanctifying Presence, as you say. So, Adam had it and lost it. Therefore, we are not born with it. You do not consider this to be change? I do.

God created us good. He said so. But yet, Adam sinned. As a result, we have lost that sanctifying presence that enables man to choose the good. This sanctifying presence is restored upon our regeneration. But all of this is not part of OUR nature. It is God's existence and presence within us. Again, if Christ took on our nature, He took it on in its original configuration as Adam had it.

It is sinful, therefore we cannot come to God by ourselves.

If our nature is sinful, then Christ did not take on a human nature. The Scriptures says that Christ was born sinless. Thus, if human nature = sinfulness, Christ only APPEARD human. This is a teaching of an anti-Christ, as John says.

What does any of that have to do with the Spirit interceding to the Father for us - IF all is "done"?

Without God, that is not truly asking for forgiveness and that person will not be forgiven. Of course the Bible teaches that anyone who does ask with God will be forgiven.

So how do you know you have "truly" asked for forgiveness of sins? Again, you are basing your "salvation" on a human quality - the manner of asking for forgiveness. If it is "true" forgiveness, you're in. If later, after 10 years of thinking you had truly asked forgiveness, and then subsequently fall away, you are told you never had "true" forgiveness...See where this is going? Either you had it or you didn't. Later falling away has NOTHING to do with something you did in your distant past!

I don't think the Jews who died in the desert were ever saved, if they were killed for their transgressions.

Perhaps you should read 1 Cor 10:1-12 again. Paul is using it "as an example"... EVERYONE who crossed the Red Sea had faith in God. They were saved from slavery - which Paul and Peter equates to the spiritual sense. You are approaching Scripture with your mind already made up that people cannot fall away. As a result, you refuse to see what is plainly written.

Paul correctly reiterates that perseverance is necessary.

Perseverence from what? Falling away as the Jews did...

Regards

For example, "he who hangs on a tree is condemned". The book says Jesus is condemned. But we base our religion on the experience of the Risen Lord, which was prophesied by reading this book in a CERTAIN MANNER!

But Jesus was condemned and cursed by the Jews. That was Jewish tradition for the crime of blasphemy. Of course it was a FALSE condemnation as Peter (1 Peter, Acts) and Paul (Galatians) later explain in the NT. The book as a whole, is thus correct, without any unknowable interpretation.

As a result, by slavishly following "the book" while disregarding Christian interpretations of it, ...

We just disagree on which Christians should be doing the interpreting. :) I slavishly follow the book because it is of God, and I do not slavishly follow men.

Christians found that they HAD to "contradict" the commonly-held notions to explain their cognitive dissonance that they experienced.

And all this time you have been arguing that if a notion was commonly held, it must have been right. The popularity argument. I'm glad to see that you now allow for some popular views to have been wrong.

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.