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.
I actually don't mind arguing these details and will answer them all as best as I can. It is very important to me to show that the Bible is factually accurate. Yes, today we know that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed, but it was the smallest seed known to any farmer in that part of the world at that time. So, it was factually true to the very limit of any listener's possible ability to understand. It's also true that black mustard seeds could produce a plant that was up to 12 feet tall, plenty tall enough for a bird's nest. See this link for a fuller explanation.
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.
And I would say definitely the neither! :) If God did allow the errors you claim, then the scriptures could not have been God-breathed unless the intention was to include error. Man choosing to reclassify animals does not make the original authors wrong. "Science" is ALWAYS changing, God never does. By your standards, it would be impossible for God to be "correct" as measured against your science at any given time.
The inspired authors did [write the Bible] to the best of their knowledge.
Were the spiritual truths they wrote also 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 ...
You are adding a false premise. No one is saying it was the purpose of the Bible to be the source of these disciplines, I am saying that nonetheless, what the Bible does say on these issues is true in the proper context. If your faith is in today's state of ever-changing science, then of course the Bible will disappoint you.
"Thank you for your thoughtful analysis on the Michal-Merab controversy. A very interesting read."
It is quite amazing what can be learned from the apparatus of modern critical Greek texts about the selectivity applied to the Greek texts that underlie all modern translations of the NT. I've not spent nearly as much time with a critical edition of the LXX, but it was an interesting exercise that I found fascinating.
If no one takes anything away from my posts on these subjects, I hope that it is an appreciation for how textual criticism stacks the theological deck in one direction or another -- before the work of translation even begins.
Do you believe that God couldn't have created the earth in six literal days? Would that be beyond His powers? I can't prove to you that He did, or if there is an interpretation of which I am unaware that says He didn't. The bottom line is that I certainly do not dismiss the idea because it "sounds" fantastical. I will assume it is literally true until someone can give me a scripturally sound reason why it should be interpreted otherwise.
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.
Why do you presume that God would employ error to teach us, TODAY, infallible truth? Parables and the like are self-evident and a legitimate means of teaching. The Biblical errors that you and Kosta are claiming are not self-evident. It takes a specific disbelief on your parts to cast those scriptures aside.
In addition, it becomes especially dangerous to start throwing out scripture as being factually untrue, but "spiritually" correct because how are you to know where to draw the line? Did God literally part the Red Sea? Was there a spiritual teaching in this act by itself? Did God really appear to Moses in the form of a burning bush, as opposed to in some other form? Is there a spiritual teaching in that? I think that once you start throwing out these Biblical accounts because they do not match with what our scientists say today, then you have to throw out a huge portion of the text, and there is no way to know when fact stops and fiction starts.
I know that you wouldn't consider the patristic witness to be authoritative (even though most of it points toward a belief in six 24 hr days.) Some of the early Church Fathers, though, speculated that creation didn't take literally six 24 hr days on the basis of the "one day is as a thousand years" of Scripture. So there is nothing new about the use of that particular passage to posit the possibility of these "days" being figurative.
St. Basil's Hexameron has been appealed to, interestingly, by those on both sides of this issue, which is understandable because of the ambiguity of what he says. I personally feel that the evidence is more on the side of St. Basil believing that the 24 hr period was a unit of time that preceded the creation of the sun and moon, but I'm not sure it matters.
I hadn't read the Hexameron in many years, but one thing interesting that I ran across when browsing through it just now was this passage:
"I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others.
There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to snake them serve their own ends.
For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel."
Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth. If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the forth of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle; all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor.
It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circumference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses.
He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls?
It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written."
This is a good example of the reaction that the Cappadocian Fathers in general had to what they considered to be the excessive allegorization of some in the "Alexandrian school."
There's a lot of truth in that statement. At times when I'm most worried and uncertain, that's when I have to stop and remind myself that everything I believe is really true. And because it's true, and because my faith is based on actual events, and because Christ really truly rose from the dead, I should have no fear.
And because of that assurance, I find myself capable of living a more generous, obedient life.
"We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit...none hope well in the Lord save those who confidently glory in being the heirs of the heavenly kingdom. No man, I say, is a believer but he who, trusting to the security of his salvation, confidently triumphs over the devil and death, as we are taught by the noble exclamation of Paul, "I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord," (Rom. 8:38). In like manner, the same Apostle does not consider that the eyes of our understanding are enlightened unless we know what is the hope of the eternal inheritance to which we are called (Eph. 1:18). Thus he uniformly intimates throughout his writings, that the goodness of God is not properly comprehended when security does not follow as its fruit."
"If all a priest ever said was "your sins will be forgiven" then that would be fine. It would simply be declaring what scripture says. But as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, it is perfectly normal for a priest to say "I forgive you". To me, that is radically different, and is the basis for my objection."
In a sense, what you would prefer is sort of like what an Orthodox priest says. Here are the words of absolution usually used by Greek Orthodox priests.
" My spiritual child, who have made your confession to my humble person: I, humble and sinful, have no power to put away sins on earth unless God does it. But, trusting in the divnely uttered pronouncement that was addressed to the Apostles after the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, saying, "If you remit the sins of any persons, they are remitted; if you you retain the sins of any persons, they have been retained"--in that import we also boldly say: As many offences as you have owned up to to my most humble lowliness, and as many as you have failed to say either though ignorance or forgetfulness--of whatever kind--may GOD absolve you both in the present age and in the age to come.'
Then bidding the penitent to kneel, the priest places his stole and hand over the head of the penitent, and touching it in four places in the form of a Cross, says the following Prayer of Absolution:
'May GOD, Who through Nathan the Prophet forgave David when he confessed his sins; and Peter, who wept bitterly over his denial; and the harlot who shed tears on His feet; and the Publican and the Prodigal; may the very same God, through sinful me, absolve you of all transgressions both in the present age and in the age to come; and may He let you stand uncondemned before His dread Judgment Seat. As for the sins that you have confessed, have no further anxiety about them; go in peace.
The Grace of the All-Holy Spirit, through me, least of all, has exonerated and forgiven you. At the prayers of our holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ, God, have mercy and save us. Ameen."
Well, my comment would be to say that your words remind me that it's been too many weeks since my last confession! I'll go Wednesday evening...
The reference to David and Nathan the prophet reminds me of the fact that the most emphasized Psalm in the Orthodox Church is Psalm 50 (51 for those following a Hebrew numbering,) which is the Psalm that David wrote after his repentance before Nathan the prophet (We in the Orthodox Church actually now refer to the king David -- whose repentance was a model of completeness -- as the "Prophet David" because of the fact that the Psalter, especially in the LXX, is so full of references to the coming Christ.)
This Psalm recurs so much in our services and personal prayers that it is hard not to know it by heart.
Here is the translation from the LXX that our church and many others use (from the HTM Psalter). It has been said that just about everything one needs to know about the Orthodox spiritual life is contained in this one Psalm:
Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy; and according to the multitude of Thy compassions blot out my transgression.
Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
For I know mine iniquity, and my sin is ever before me.
Against Thee only have I sinned and done this evil before Thee, that Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, and prevail when Thou art judged.
For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me.
For behold, Thou hast loved truth; the hidden and secret things of Thy wisdom hast Thou made manifest unto me.
Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be made clean; Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.
Thou shalt make me to hear joy and gladness; the bones that be humbled, they shall rejoice.
Turn Thy face away from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.
Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and with Thy governing Spirit establish me.
I shall teach transgressors Thy ways, and the ungodly shall turn back unto Thee.
Deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God, Thou God of my salvation; my tongue shall rejoice in Thy righteousness.
O Lord, Thou shalt open my lips, and my mouth shall declare Thy praise.
For if Thou hadst desired sacrifice, I had given it; with whole-burnt offerings Thou shalt not be pleased.
A sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit; a heart that is broken and humbled God will not despise.
Do good, O Lord, in Thy good pleasure unto Sion, and let the walls of Jerusalem be builded.
Then shalt Thou be pleased with a sacrifice of righteousness, with oblation and whole-burnt offerings.
Then shall they offer bullocks upon Thine altar.
I must also, for truth in advertising, say that the Russian tradition has some different wording, which includes the words, "and I, His unworthy priest" also forgive thee.
This phraseology is a late addition under Western influence. Many Russian tradition priests have quietly moved back to the Greek wording, which more accurately reflects our theology of confession.
Also, for those who are not familiar with the Orthodox Church, Orthodox confessions take place out in the open at the front of the church (off to the side).
Of course it is possible. Do you believe the Christ can feed His followers His flesh?
I certainly do not dismiss the idea because it "sounds" fantastical. I will assume it is literally true until someone can give me a scripturally sound reason why it should be interpreted otherwise.
When science shows that a passage in Scripture is NOT meant to be taken literally, WE must readjust WHAT God is trying to say. Let me quote you a something a smart guy once said...
"It is very important to me to show that the Bible is factually accurate. Yes, today we know that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed, but it was the smallest seed known to any farmer in that part of the world at that time. So, it was factually true to the very limit of any listener's possible ability to understand." a.k.a Forest Keeper, Post #4281
A word to the wise. When science tells us that the Earth was created over a millions of years, we must learn to realize that God wasn't teaching science, anymore than Jesus was teaching botany.
Why do you presume that God would employ error to teach us, TODAY, infallible truth?
Refer to your post above. God uses the information that man has available at the time to teach HIS revelation. The Scripture is a theological book. Thus, the information that man knows at the time is utilized by God without "correcting" man's lack of scientific knowledge. God's point of Scripture is to reveal Himself. Whether He uses stories, myths, parables, history, narrative, or whatever, the inerrant word is often behind the litarary devices that the human authors employ. Generally, we take the Scriptures as literal, unless we can determine that God has used something not meant to be taken as such. For example, aren't poems more expressive of human desires than the coldness of scientific or historical language? Thus, some of God's greatest revelations are found in the Psalms - which use poetic words and ideas to bring across the broad spectrum of human emotion.
The Biblical errors that you and Kosta are claiming are not self-evident. It takes a specific disbelief on your parts to cast those scriptures aside.
We don't disbelieve Scriptures is from God. We believe that God teaches man through even flawed human knowledge. If the author was not aware that the earth was round and said the entire world was flat, does that mean that God lied - since the entire world is not flat? Man's knowledge is not perfect, nor will it ever be. God speaks to us from where we are at.
Did God literally part the Red Sea?
This is a matter of faith, not something that science or history or botany can later disprove as being incorrect. Recognizing these differences will not disrupt your faith. Just because the mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed has nothing to do with the truth of the Resurrection.
I think that once you start throwing out these Biblical accounts because they do not match with what our scientists say today, then you have to throw out a huge portion of the text, and there is no way to know when fact stops and fiction starts.
I thought that when I first came to Christianity. No, we don't have to accept everything that science tells us as infallible. But on the other hand, we should not base our faith on every little detail of the Bible as if those details were revealed by God. Scripture is not that way. Scripture was written by MAN - INSPIRED by God. Man didn't just merely hold the pen/quill. God ensured that His message got written down. But man is often times wrong on what exactly that message is. If one approaches the Bible as a science tract, they will find themselves thoroughly embarrassed and have a lot of explaining to do. I don't find myself in that position because I know God taught man through other men. Whether that information got put into books or by word of mouth, we believe that it came to us through men. God protected what He wanted said, but we must try to recognize the literary genre and knowledge that man had available - through which God spoke to us. For example, is Jonah a parable or a real accounting? Who cares. The message that God wanted said is there - for example, that God's message is often seen more clearly by outsiders than the religiously self-righteous. That God's salvation is for all, not just the Jews. And so forth. IF there was a man named Jonah and he was swallowed by a whale, HOW does that effect my experience of God?
"This Psalm recurs so much in our services and personal prayers that it is hard not to know it by heart."
You'll be chanting/reciting/hearing it Wednesday night in fact!
I suppose the only way this could work is that humans are not born with human nature, they are born with some other nature. Is there a name for this non-human nature that we are born with? Christ, therefore, was the only one born with a real human nature, a nature of sinlessness. But even here, we still run into all of your objections to Christ being born unlike us. OTOH, if you have Christ being born with a fallen nature, then you have Christ fighting against Himself. Very odd result.
So, Christ was born without sanctifying presence in order to be like us? Did He receive this sanctifying presence at His Baptism, as an adult believer? If so, how was Jesus able to do any good before that? It really seems like you are completely redefining what the human "nature" is. You are forced to reject that there is any blemish in human nature. Of course this goes directly against scripture.
What does any of that have to do with the Spirit interceding to the Father for us - IF all is "done"?
All is done but the doing, so to speak. Fortunately, we do not have to rely on ourselves for the doing, or else it would be as you say, and not really done. However, since God promises us He will take care of the doing we can know for sure that it will happen, thus, for all intents and purposes, it is "done" if one believes that God is reliable. The Spirit is a part of all this.
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.
I would call it faith, but if I am basing my knowledge of my own salvation on a human quality, then you do the same thing. You rely on the teachings of extra-Biblical men for your salvation. You say the Spirit leads them only, I say the Spirit leads them and all believers.
FK: "Paul correctly reiterates that perseverance is necessary."
Perseverence from what? Falling away as the Jews did...
Yes, this is evidence that those Jews never had faith to begin with. I read 1 Cor 10:1-12 and it doesn't say that any of them ever had true faith, it says they acted like others of faith and practiced similar rituals. So what? Anyone can do that.
"For example, is Jonah a parable or a real accounting? Who cares. The message that God wanted said is there - for example, that God's message is often seen more clearly by outsiders than the religiously self-righteous. That God's salvation is for all, not just the Jews. And so forth. IF there was a man named Jonah and he was swallowed by a whale, HOW does that effect my experience of God?"
The significance of Jonah as seen by the Orthodox Church is far more than a simple morality tale as you describe above, although it is certainly also that.
The Prophet Jonah's prayer from the belly of the whale is one of the half-dozen or so passages from the OT most highlighted by the Church. It is one of the Biblical Canticles that form the basis for our hymn-form known as the canon. Therefore, the irmos (or "hook") that starts each ode of the canon ties into that canticle.
The most important typology seen in the life of Jonah is that of Christ's three day burial in the tomb. This is a recurrent theme in our hymnology.
A second theme is that of us being cast about on the sea of life, and of drowning in the abyss, and our need to call out to God for salvation, just as Jonah did. And Jonah's prayer reminds us that God's profound mercy is always waiting for us, and that it is our failure to turn to Him that keeps us from experiencing that mercy: "They that observe vain and false things have abandoned mercy for themselves."
One of the things that I have thought about a fair amount lately as a result of this thread is that the Gospels usually make it clear when Christ is telling a parable. The parables are very general, for the most part, and in these parables there are rarely much specificity of detail, unless there is some point to that detail (such as identifying the Good Samaritan as a Samaritan, rather than some unspecified person.)
Christ's references to Jonah and Ninevah in St. Matthew 12 and St. Luke 11, especially when taken in the context of the entire passages, personally don't strike me as being representing a shift into parable. The specificity of whom he is talking to and of the references he makes, is not at all similar to his telling of parables. He refers to these events as having actually been there to witness them (which of course, as the Lord God of the OT, he was.)
In fact, if we are to take as as a parable Christ's words: "For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation," then the direct equivalency of this statement leads inexorably to Christ saying that his own death and Resurrection would be a parable.
St. John Chrysostom touches on this very point, which is not surprising, given the fact that the Cappadocian Fathers were very consistent in their teaching that the events of human history recorded in Scripture were types -- not in a mythological or allegorical sense, but in God's acting through history to reveal himself to mankind. This is from his 43rd homily explaining the Gospel of St. Matthew:
"But see how exactly He expresses it, even though in a dark saying. For He said not, In the earth, but, In the heart of the earth; that He might designate His very sepulchre, and that no one might suspect a mere semblance.
And for this intent too did He allow three days, that the fact of His death might be believed. For not by the cross only doth He make it certain, and by the sight of all men, but also by the time of those days.
For to the resurrection indeed all succeeding time was to bear witness; but the cross, unless it had at the time many signs bearing witness to it, would have been disbelieved; and with this disbelief would have gone utter disbelief of the resurrection also.
Therefore He calls it also a sign. But had He not been crucified, the sign would not have been given. For this cause too He brings forward the type, that the truth may be believed.
For tell me, was Jonah in the whales belly a mere appearance? Nay, thou canst not say so. Therefore neither was Christ in the heart of the earth such. [i.e. neither was Christ's 3 day burial a mere appearance. -- A.]
Whence it is clear, that they who are diseased in Marcions way are children of the devil, blotting out these truths, to avoid the annulling whereof Christ did so many things, while to have them annulled the devil took such manifold pains: I mean, His cross and His passion."
[jo kus to FK] We don't disbelieve Scriptures is from God
When did I say that I don't believe the Scriptures? "Seek and ye shall find," says the Lord. Did not +Thomas doubt and remain an Apostle? Why condemn someone who is struggling from the bottom of his heart but never abandons his faith nonetheless? It is faith after all, and I believe it regardless of what my reason says.
So, why condemn someone who believes Scripture is true and inerrant but not as you see it? I never said I wanted to throw any part out, or intentionally disbelieve? Perhaps you, the accusers, have failed to show that what you believe is the undisputed truth but can't show it?
Nonetheless, I take the position that I am the greatest sinner and this is my burden that I confess. It is not up to me to concern myself with your sins. God knows my intentions and He shall be my Judge.
I am merely a humble defender of God's Holy word, and the sovereignty of God. :) I'm not saying that God couldn't do anything He wanted to, I'm saying He wouldn't do this because of the resulting carnage to His word that is necessarily thereby required.
Can you show one verse that PREVENTS God from dealing with men in such a way?
Perhaps not specifically, but you are the champion of things being true that are not in the Bible. I'm just saying that it is not consistent with scripture, as I have shown. Therefore, I don't believe it.
Catholics KNOW they have been forgiven of sin.
But how fleeting is this knowledge. It's not like knowing that 2 + 2 = 4, it is like knowing that it is sunny today, but who knows about tomorrow? My knowledge is like the former.
Protestants always wonder "did my sinner's prayer take?
HA! I don't think so. Ever since I learned about what God has to say about it, I've never had any worries.
So, according to you, the Church has been in apostasy for 1,500 years? The Church is a "devil's system?"
In contradistinction to this veiw came the Reformers who looked at the biblical data with the Hebrew glasses of covenant...
That much is clear.
Rejecting the Greek speculation regarding metaphysical sameness and processes they saw instead the *ethical* nature of the covenant
In other words, being righteous (as in Judaism), and thefore "acceptable to God?"
If only that was true. There is no way I will ever be convinced that Christ would approve of the farce called annulment. In my opinion, your leaders invented out of whole cloth the cheapest "out" I have ever heard of. I really think it wholly diminishes the sanctity of marriage. I'm sick enough about how many Protestant divorces there are, but at least we are honest about it.
He does, we just disagree on how.
Do you really think the Bible is so clear that anyone can pick it up and come to the same conclusion.
Not on everything, but on everything needed for salvation, I do think the Bible is very simple and clear. It is when men decide to add to scripture what isn't there, that different conclusions are reached.
I'll have to give your post serious thought prior to responding with any fullness.
I would like to address a couple of things, though.
First is your comment "The Christian Aristotelian (oxymoron, yes i know) believes that the historical Christ, the individual, was sucked back into the borg, into pure being, but was reincarnated as the Church. This reincarnation allows us halflings to participate in pure being to some extent while we are yet halflings..."
I didn't see this original post, but I can unequivocally state that the Orthodox Church does not take this kind of view at all. What you are articulating is an idea popularized as "extreme kenosis," and it has no place in our belief.
The clearest statement from Scripture that demonstrates that this cannot be true is of course that of the angels at the Ascension, who said to the Apostles that they would see Christ return again in like manner.
St. John of Damascus puts it thusly: "And the Lord shall come out of heaven, just as the holy apostles beheld Him going into heaven, perfect God and perfect man, with glory and power... Let no one, therefore, look for the Lord to come from earth, but out of Heaven, as He himself has made sure."
And again, St. John on the Holy Mysteries (i.e. Holy Communion): "The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit."
"...over against the Greek philosophy of meta-physical transformation"
If you mean that the following has roots in Greek philosophy, then I'm not quite sure what to say: "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..."
But that is a cheap shot. :-) Keep in mind that our understanding of salvation is inextricably linked with our understanding of Christology. If by "transformation," you mean a transformation from one nature to another, then Orthodoxy would completely reject that. For we do not even believe that Christ's human nature was transformed in any way.
St. John again: "It is worthy of note that the flesh of the Lord is not said to have been deified and made equal to God and God in respect of any change or alteration, or transformation, or confusion of nature....
...nor on the other hand, was the flesh, when deified, changed in its own nature or in its natural properties. For even after the union, both the natures abode unconfused and their properties unimpaired. But the flesh of the Lord received the riches of the divine energies through the purest union with the Word, that is to say, the union in subsistence, without entailing the loss of any of its natural attributes. For it is not in virtue of any energy of its own but through the Word united to it, that it manifests divine energy: for the flaming steel burns, not because it has been endowed in a physical way with burning energy, but because it has obtained this energy by its union with fire."
Thus, any "transformation" that takes place is not a transforming of ourselves into a divine nature, but rather the result of the "riches of the divine energies" through union with God.
Or as St. Paul says, "it is no longer I who live, but Christ who liveth in me." St. Paul obviously does not mean that Christ's body is inside of his body, or that his body has turned into Christ's body. He is rather talking about the "riches of glory" to which he repeatedly refers in his epistles.
"We see in the writings of the Patriarchs terms such as, "stasis". "kinises", "energia", "eremia", which are all greek philosophical terms based in Platonic or NeoPlatonic philosophy."
Most New Testament terms that were used by pagan Greek philosophers -- does that mean that the Apostles intended thereby to follow pagan Greek philosophical concepts?