I noticed no rebutal to the evidence I produced that my comment regarding Zwingli was accurate. I take it from your silence that you argee(?). The statement was from Institut für schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte, which looked to me to be authoritative on this subject. But if you have some evidence that I was inaccurate, I'd be happy to see it.

I was commenting on your argument that their arguments gained credibility because of their willingness to die for the Gospel. This argument is faulty. Because A implies B does not mean that B implies A. The fact that they were willing to die for the Gospel means what they say *might* be true. They are not immediately ruled out. They *possibly* gain credibility. This is elementary logic.

Again, I'm not saying anything against either Luther or Zwingli, especially Luther. There is no doubt he was a great man of God. However there was a progression of light. Wesley came after Luther, and Adventism after Wesley. We come from a Wesleyan tradition, not a Lutheran one. The ground we are traveling has been traveled many times before, which is fine, but it's nice to have an awareness of our heritage. Actually there's a reason why Calvinism has crept into our church in the last 50+ years, but we can go into that some other time.

Ok, you've suggested a good course of action, comparing the words of Scripture, of Ellen White, and our pioneers. Let's do that.

The accepted in the beloved statement reminds me of this from Ellen White:

And the word that was spoken to Jesus at the Jordan, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," embraces humanity. God spoke to Jesus as our representative. With all our sins and weaknesses, we are not cast aside as worthless. "He hath made us accepted in the Beloved." Eph. 1:6. The glory that rested upon Christ is a pledge of the love of God for us.(DA 113)

From the standpoint of election, the entire human race is elected in Christ. The entire human race is made accepted in the Beloved. Whosoever will may come.

From A. T. Jones in a sermon to the General Conference session:

He hath given us all the blessings He has in Christ. Christ says, "I am with you." Brethren, let us feed on the blessings. We have them, and they are our own. Then we can be sure all the time that we have all spiritual blessings.
We can be sure all the time that He has chosen us. He says He has. We can be sure all the time that He has predestinated us unto the adoption of children. We can be sure all the time that He has made us accepted in the Beloved. We can be sure of all these things, for God says so and it is so. Then isn't that a continual feast itself?

Now He has done all that and has done it freely. For how many people did He do this? Every soul? [Congregation: "Yes, sir."] Gave all the blessings He has to every soul in this world; He chose every soul in the world; He chose Him in Christ before the foundation of the world, predestinated him unto the adoption of children and made him accepted in the Beloved, did He not? [Congregation: "Yes."] Of course He did. We will read other verses on that presently. The thought I am after just now is that no one can have these things and know they are his without his own consent. The Lord will not force any of these things upon a man, even though He has given them already, will He? [Congregation: "No."] This is a cooperation, you see. God pours out everything in one wondrous gift, but if a man will not have it, the Lord will not compel him to have a bit of it. Every man that will take it, it is all his own. There is where the cooperation comes in. The Lord has to have our cooperation in all things.

This is the exact same idea. The blessings include the whole world, but God will not force any of these things upon any man. This is very well put!

Here's Waggoner:

God has not cast off the human race. Since the first man created was called "the son of God," all men can also be heirs. "Before faith came," although all were wanderers from God, we were "under the law," guarded by a severe master, kept under restraint in order that we might be led to accept the promise. What a blessed thing it is that God counts even the ungodly, those who are in the bondage of sin, as His children, wandering, prodigal sons, but still children!

God has made all men "accepted in the Beloved." Ephesians 1:6, KJV. This probationary life is given for the
purpose of giving us a chance to acknowledge Him as Father and to become sons indeed. But unless we come back to Him we shall die as slaves of sin. (The Glad Tidings)

This is exactly the same idea. God has made all men "accepted in the Beloved." But we must choose to accept that which God has given us. Or we could say we must choose not to reject that which God has given us.

I found a chapter on predesitination by Uriah Smith, but it's too long to put here, so I'll put in in the next post.

The following is from Uriah Smith, written in 1884.

CHAPTER 29.

Predestination.

URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0304 paragraph 1 THAT the Bible teaches predestination, is true; that it teaches what modern theology defines the term to mean, we think is not true. As set forth in the Scriptures, it is a doctrine full of comfort and consolation; as taught in the creeds, it is full of spiritual paralysis and despair. In the Scriptures, it is the assurance of salvation so long as we maintain a certain relation to God; in theology, it is a relation determined for us independently of our own will, and a fixed destiny to a life which we cannot lose, or a death, which we cannot avert. Webster defines the word "predestination" in its theological acceptation to mean. "The purpose of God from eternity respecting all events; often the pre-assignment or allotment of men to everlasting happiness or misery."
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0304 paragraph 2 The tendency of this latter doctrine must be at once apparent. It leads the individual to throw off all responsibility, and intermit all efforts for himself. He says, If my destiny has been fixed from all eternity by an irreversible decree, I might as well resign myself to my fate, and let the current take me where it has been predetermined that it shall take
________________________________________________________________
QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER TWENTY-NINE
1. What may be said of the Bible view of predestination? 2. What of the theological view? 3. What is the contrast between these two views? 4. What is Webster's definition of the term? 5. What is the tendency of the popular view?

0305

me: if I am to be saved, I shall be saved, and no one can prevent it; if I am to be lost, I cannot avoid it.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0305 paragraph 1 It is impossible to arouse such a soul to repentance. The answer comes, If I am to repent, God will make me repent when the time comes; and I need not concern myself about it. Such an one cannot be induced to heed the divine injunction to flee from the wrath to come; for he says, If I am appointed to that wrath, flee as I will, I cannot avoid it; and if not, then for me there is no wrath to come.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0305 paragraph 2 We once heard of a Presbyterian minister, who, by some strange infatuation, conceived the idea that a certain one of his two sons was elected to be saved, and so taught him; but he considered that the other was fore-ordained to be lost, and taught him accordingly. Result: The elect son has entered the ministry; the reprobate is on the high road to that damnation which his father has held up before him as his inevitable portion. If that son is lost, what responsibility will rest upon that father! Give a man the natural inclinations of the heart to contend with, and then teach him that heaven is to him an impossibility, and it need not take long to divine what the result will be.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0305 paragraph 3 Four times the word "predestinate" is used in the Scriptures, twice in Romans 8, and twice in Ephesians 1. Once we have the word "fore-ordain" 1 Pet.1:20. The word "ordain" is also used four times with a future signification. Six times we have the word "election," and twenty times the word "elect."
________________________________________________________________
6. How does it hinder repentance? 7. What instance is mentioned in illustration? 8. How many times is the word "predestinate" found in the Scriptures? 9. How many times is "fore-ordain" used? 10. How many times the word "election?"

0306

URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0306 paragraph 1 The meaning of the word "election" is a "choosing out, selecting;" and the elect are simply those who are "chosen out" by God, as the recipients of special privileges, because they are "choice" and "precious" in his sight. The question is whether this "choosing out" is an act absolutely arbitrary on the part of God with reference to individuals, or whether it pertains to a certain plane of life or to a people as a class, and reaches the individual only on conditions which he is himself to supply.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0306 paragraph 2 Let appeal be made to the leading texts upon this question. And as a direction to thought, let them be considered with reference to these propositions: 1. God "hath appointed" (Luke 22:29), or fore-ordained, Jesus Christ to the kingship of this world. This he did "before the foundation of the world" (1Pet.1:20); that is, this fore-ordination was coeval with his purpose to create the world. It was not ordained on what ground he should finally hold this position. Had man never sinned, it would have been on the ground of Creatorship alone; but since man fell, and the original purpose could then be carried out only by his redemption, Christ will hold his position by virtue of being both Creator and Redeemer. 2. God has ordained that all who will conform to the image of his Son shall be saved.
________________________________________________________________
11. How many times the word "elect?" 12. What is the meaning of the word "election?" 13. Who are therefore "the elect?" 14. What is the question to be here decided? 15. What hath God "appointed?" 16. When did he do this? 17. On what ground was it ordained that Christ should be head and ruler of this world? 18. How would it have been if man never had sinned? 19. Since man has sinned, on what ground will Christ hold his position at last? 20. What has God ordained respecting our relation to Christ? 21. What are those called who conform to his image? 22. How does this election control individuals?

0307

Such are the elect. But 3. He has not ordained that such and such individuals shall believe on Christ and be saved, whether they will or not; and such and such other individuals cannot believe on Christ, however willingly they would do so, and hence must be lost at last. On the question of accepting or rejecting Christ, our own free moral agency operates. On the plane of belief in Christ or connection with him, God's fore-ordination or election operates. Reaching that plane, we are its subjects, and become the elect. Falling from it, we lose our title to life, and cease to be the elect. Hence we are exhorted to make our "calling and election sure." 2Pet.1:10. We may accept or reject Christ as we will. All else is beyond our control. Believing in him, we are elected and fore-ordained to be saved, as surely as God's throne is to stand; rejecting him, we are as sure to be lost as sin is to be punished.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0307 paragraph 1 1. In Eph.1:4,5 the "choosing" and "predestination" is "in him," that is, in Christ. We are adopted as children to himself "by Jesus Christ." But if we reject Christ, we frustrate all these good purposes and promises, so far as our own cases are concerned.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0307 paragraph 2 2. Rom.8:29,30 doubtless refers to the company raised at the resurrection of Christ, among whom he was the "first-born" who were "justified," that is, were accepted in anticipation of the general Judgment, and also "glorified" when he led them
________________________________________________________________
23. On what question does our free moral agency operate? 24. On what plane does the law of God's fore-ordination operate? 25. What exhortation is given in 2Pet.1:10? 26. How much is subject to our control? 27. Believing in him, what is sure to us? 28. Rejecting him, what is our doom? 29. Explain Eph.1:4,5. 30. To whom does Rom.8:29,30 doubtless refer? 31. How are we chosen from the beginning, as set forth in 2Thess.2:13?

0308

up with him on high (Eph.4:8, margin) to be his assistants in his mediatorial work. Rev.5:8-10. If this application is correct, the testimony refers to a particular case, not to the destiny of men in general.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0308 paragraph 1 3. In 2Thess,2:13 it is said that "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation;" but the apostle immediately limits the statement by adding, "through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." But suppose the Thessalonians had rejected the Spirit, and refused to believe the truth, as they certainly were free to do, where, then, would have been their salvation?
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0308 paragraph 2 4. Another expression, found in 2Tim.1:9, is supposed to prove election before the world was: "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." As to the time, the Greek reads, prochronon aionion, "before the ages of time." But in many instances means simply "a dispensation;" and the passage may refer to the time when the plan of salvation, with its different dispensations, was laid. That which was given us at this time was the "grace," or favor, of God; but this was "in Christ Jesus." Now if any man rejects Christ, what grace does he receive? - None.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0308 paragraph 3 5. 1Pet.1:1,2. The English version of this passage makes the strangers of Pontus, Galatia, etc., "elect according to the foreknowledge of God."
________________________________________________________________
32. Were the Thessalonians free to reject the conditions? 33. What is the expression found in 2Tim.1:9? 34. What may it mean? 35. What is asserted of God's foreknowledge in 1Pet.1,2? 36. How is Acts 13:48 explained?

0309

In the original, however, they are addressed simply as "the elect sojourners." So the revised version reads: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, according to the foreknowledge of God." Now all that is asserted respecting God's foreknowledge is this: Either Peter was an apostle according to the foreknowledge of God, or the elect whom he addresses (elect according to the principle stated above) were sojourners according to the foreknowledge of God. But in either case it has no bearing on the question of predestination, as here under discussion.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0309 paragraph 1 6. "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed." This expression is found in Acts 13:48; and it is asked if this does not prove that certain ones believed because they were fore-ordained to eternal life, and hence were elected to believe and be saved. The word rendered "ordained" is tasso, and it means "to appoint, set, arrange, dispose, or frame" for any object. In the light of this definition, all difficulty disappears. As many as were disposed, inclined, or had a desire, for eternal life, believed. It does not assert a decree that they should be saved, any more than if one of our ministers should report that he found many disposed to receive the truth, and they readily believed.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0309 paragraph 2 7. Rev.13:8: "Written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." All this text asserts is that the Lamb was slain (in God's purpose) from the foundation of the world; that is, from the time when the great dispensation of redemption was fixed upon and begun. Rev.17:8 is unquestionably designed as a declaration exactly
________________________________________________________________
37. What is said to be from the foundation of the world in Rev.13:8? 38. What other passage is parallel with this?

0310

parallel with Rev.13:8, though quite elliptical in its form of expression. Here we have, instead of "the book of life [of the Lamb slain] from the foundation of the world," simply the words "book of life [] from the foundation of the world," designed probably as a statement of the same great fact. There is propriety and force in the declaration that the Lamb was slain and the book of life was opened from the foundation of the world; but what possible reason can be conceived why the name of any person should be entered therein before such person has openly professed to become a follower of that Lamb whose book it is. If it be said that they were entered there because God has passed his decree in all these cases, and they were elected to be saved, we reply that such a conclusion cannot be entertained; for though a person may have once had his name in the book of life, unless he proves to be an overcomer, his name will be blotted from that book, and he will find his portion at last in the lake of fire. Rev.3:5; 20:15.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0310 paragraph 1 8. An examination of a few expressions found in the 9th chapter of Romans will be all that is further required in this brief synopsis of the subject.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0310 paragraph 2 (1.) Through Moses, the Lord said to Pharaoh, "Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee." Verse 17. The passage in Exodus (9:16) from which this is quoted, reads: "And in very deed, for this cause have I raised thee up," etc. The margin reads, "Made thee stand." This expression, applied to a king, simply means to bring to the throne, to establish in the kingdom; as, "There shall stand up yet three kings in Persia." Dan.11:2. The time was
________________________________________________________________
39. What is said about Pharaoh in Ex.9:16? 40. What does the expression mean? 41. When did God harden Pharaoh's heart? Why did he harden it?

0311

coming for the deliverance of God's people from Egypt. At the same time there was a reprobate upon the throne, who would not heed the voice of Jehovah, but would exert all the power of his kingdom to prevent that deliverance which God had promised. God might have removed him, and brought to the throne a just and amiable prince, who would have recognized Israel's right, and given them safe passage out of his kingdom. Then the world would have said, "Israel went out, not because God had promised, but because a weak and foolish king let them go." So God said, Let the wicked Pharaoh keep the throne; let proud, rebellious, reprobate man, exerting all human power, stand up against my purposes; and then let the world see how easily my work will go forward over it all. This is all the "raising up" God did to Pharaoh; yet the skeptic will represent it that God gave Pharaoh life on purpose that he might destroy him, and compelled him, time and again, to falsify his word, and to take the defiant, wicked course that he did, and then punished him for it; which was not at all the case.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0311 paragraph 1 But did not God harden Pharaoh's heart? Certainly; but when? - After he had endured his rebellious course to the limit of his longsuffering; for such, verse 22 declares, is God's method of dealing with these reprobates. He first offers to all men light, and truth, and mercy. 2Thess.2:10. If they incorrigibly refuse these, there follows, not only as an inevitable consequence, but as a judicial infliction from him, darkness, and error, and wrath, Verse 11. He offers them first the position of agents to carry out harmoniously his will. When
________________________________________________________________
42. What proves this? Verse 22. 43. What does God first offer men? 44. If they refuse these, what follows?

0312

they refuse this, he makes them monuments of his power by triumphing in judgments over all their opposition. Rom.9:22. He first tries to make them vessels of honor. If they will not be molded into these, he does the next best thing he can with them, and makes them vessels of dishonor, as the potter has power to do. Verse 21. So it was with Pharaoh; for though the particulars of his previous contumacy are not given us, the rule by which God acts in such cases is plainly stated.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0312 paragraph 1 (2.) The "election" of Rom.9:11 is not a decree of damnation, but the choice of Jacob instead of Esau to receive special favors from God. God has a right to bestow his favors as he wills. No one has any claims upon him. The non-recipients are in nowise wronged, while the recipients are greatly favored.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0312 paragraph 2 (3.) "Esau have I hated." Before either Jacob or Esau were born, it is recorded that God "loved" one and "hated" the other. Does not this prove eternal reprobation? - No; for the word "hated" does not here signify a positive exercise of ill-will or malevolence; but it has simply a relative meaning, signifying to "love less," as in Luke 14:26. For his own good reasons, God loved Esau less than he loved Jacob, and so made Jacob the subject of special favor. But he in nowise jeopardized Esau's eternal interests, nor did him any injustice.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0312 paragraph 3 (4.) "Whom he will he hardeneth." Even here we have no occasion to "reply against God;" for he has revealed to us what his "will" is in this matter. He wills to harden only those who reject his mercy;
________________________________________________________________
45. What kind of election is brought to view in Rom.9:22? 46. What does the word "hated" mean, in the expression, "Esau have I hated?" 47. When does God "will" to harden? 48. Upon whom does he "will" to have mercy?

0313

and he "will have mercy" upon all who will receive it.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0313 paragraph 1 9. But if God foreknows that I will be lost, must I not be lost despite all contingencies? - In this case you are to be lost, of course, but not because God foreknows it, nor by any personal decree of his. It would be the same if God did not foreknows it. To illustrate: A young man moves into the society of evil companions and the atmosphere of the saloon. He is perfectly free to resist if he will; but he yields to temptation, goes down, and is lost. You felt morally certain it would be so in the beginning. Suppose you had foreknown it absolutely; would your foreknowledge have compelled him to that course? - Not at all. Neither does God's foreknowledge, in any case. Events transpire, not because God foreknows them; but he foreknows them because they are to transpire. In this we speak only of events connected with free moral agency. Such agents he leaves free to decide their own destiny.
URS SYNPT CHAPTER 29. Predestination. page 0313 paragraph 2 Such as herein set forth we believe to be the Bible doctrine of election and predestination. We have called it a doctrine full of consolation. It assures the heart of every believer. It dispels doubt and misgiving. It shows how sure is the Christian's hope. In Christ we are elected to be saved. In him we stand upon the decree of Jehovah, declared from the beginning, and as firm as the pillars of his own throne. The only contingency lies in our own course of action. Let us, therefore, labor to make our calling and election sure.
________________________________________________________________
49. Does God's foreknowledge that a man will sin compel him to sin? 50. Does any event, connected with free moral agency, transpire because God foreknows it, or does he foreknow it because it is going to take place?[0314]

0314

Tom I'll not comment on Smith for now because I'd like to hear what others have to say, especially members who don't often post. I want to ask them, what do they see as the meaning of Eph 1 on the topic. Who is closer to the meaning of Eph 1, Smith, Jones, Waggoner, White, Luther or Zwingli? Personally, I favour Luther, White and Zwingli.

I'm still curious as to why you think I was inaccurate in regards to Zwingli. I produced a web site, Institut für schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte, to substantiate what I wrote. Do you disagree with the web site?

Waggoner, Jones and White, if you mean Ellen White, are saying the same thing, as you can see from the quotes. They each brought out that the work of Christ was for the entire human race, that all are accepted in the beloved, but that the gift given to the race must be received by each individually.

Luther and Zwingli are closer to Calvin's ideas, which are not Arminianist, but rather due to Augustine's influence. Really it comes down to whether one thinks Augustine had the right concept or not.

I'm just curious, but how can one read Ellen White and not know that she was strongly Arminianist? She was a *stronger* Arminianst than Jones or Waggoner, not weaker.

Why would you lump Ellen White with Luther and Zwingli in the context of predesitination? That seems bizarre to me.

I was hoping to hear from others but maybe I was premature. The thoughts have not been developed as well as they might so I'll continue giving an overview of this doctrine in the Protestant Reformation and then as we discuss it futher bring my views together in a more systematic format . . .

At the turn of the 16th century a newfound love for the Greek classics had created a curious custom among the scholars of the Holy Roman Empire (Germany, Spain, Belgium etc) and France. Many of these men took on Greek names and preferred to use them over their native names. So they became know by a single Greek name in history rather than by a first and last name. Luther’s closest, life long friend and fellow reformer, Melanethon, was one those.

In 1521 during Luther’s captivity in Wartburg Castle, Melanethon at Wittenberg, Germany wrote a book entitled “On the Common-places of Theology”. Between that date and 1595 the Common-places passed through sixty-seven German editions not including translations and D’Aubigne in his History of the Reformation says of this work; “Next to the Bible, this is the book that has possibly contributed most to the establishment of the evangelical doctrine.” D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, Book 3, Volume IX Chapter ix. Page 340.

As I’ve read D’Aubigne, I’ve come to respect his opinions as those of one of the greatest theologians of the 19th century. He was not only a learned historian; he was a man of God and of scripture. Here is a brief, candid analysis by him of Luther, Melanethon, and the latter’s treatment of the topic of free will in Melanethon’s work, Common-places:

Quote:

---

The first edition of Common-places is especially remarkable for the manner in which the theologian of Germany speaks of free will. He saw more clearly perhaps than Luther, for he was a better theologian, that this doctrine could not be separated from that which constituted the very essence of the Reformation. Man’s justification before God proceeds from faith alone: This is the first point. This faith enters man’s heart by the grace of God alone: here is the second. Melanethon saw clearly that if he allowed that man had any natural ability to believe, he would be throwing down in the second point that great doctrine of grace which he had stated in the first. He had too much discernment and understanding of the Holy Scriptures to be mistaken in so important a matter. But he went too far. Instead of confining himself with the limits of the religious question, he entered upon the metaphysics. He established a fatalism which might tend to represent God as the author if evil, - a doctrine which has no foundation in Scripture. “As all things which happen”, said he, “happen necessarily, according to the Divine predestination, there is no such thing as liberty in our wills.”

---

But in spite of this shortcoming in the theology presented in Common-places, D’Aubigne continues his summary of the book and ends with the ringing endorsement I quoted above. “Next to the Bible, this is the book that has possibly contributed most to the establishment of the evangelical doctrine.”

I have more than one reason for quoting this passage from D’Aubigne. One is to show that the seeds of Calvinism can be traced back to Melanethon and to Luther. Although I don’t know of any statements of Luther’s that mirror Melanethon’s overstatement on predestination, it is clear that Luther believed the two points regarding grace cited above and these were consistently at the core of his theology. While Luther may have had reservations about this last statement, he viewed Melanethon’s work as one of the greatest treasure of Christendom. When I have a chance I plan to read it.

Another reason for citing this overstatement of Melanethon’s on predestination is that there is a warning in it to all thought leaders to vet their opinions thoroughly before making them public and even after making them public they should be revised as needed.

A third reason I have for quoting D’Aubigne is to allay fears that belief in the doctrine of election and predestination necessarily leads to fatalism and errors regarding the role of the will. D’Aubigne is the embodiment of proof that both doctrines can be harmonized and that both are essential and scriptural. Only as we let all scripture to have its intended meaning in both areas will be arrive at a sound, balanced understanding of the role of grace and the role of the human will.

I do not know what you would like comments on; the subject, or the various writers in history.

John, either if fine. But continuing on with my overview of Reformation history on this point . . . .


Protestant and Catholic historians alike agree that the most brilliant and influential scholar of the early Reformation period was a Dutchman from Rotterdam named Erasmus. His writings and advice were regularly sought by not only the scholarly community of Europe and Britain, but in the earlier years of the Reformation by all of the nobility and theologians, Protestant and Catholic alike. For example, Frederick the Wise, Luther’s protector, had a private interview with Erasmus on the question of the indulgences. Henry VIII of Britain vied with several other monarchs to add him to their courts. Erasmus only temporarily accepted some of these invitations. His preference though was to live in one of the free cities of Switzerland where he could have complete freedom to pursue and promote his love of the classics.

For the first seven years of the Reformation, 1517 to 1524 Erasmus was inclined to favour the evangelical doctrines of Zwingle and Luther. But this tragic man’s downfall was that he loved the praise of men more than the approval of God and when he was pressed between the two parties of Reformed Christianity and Catholicism he decided in favour of Catholicism. Seven years after the start of the Reformation in the fall of 1524 Erasmus published a book, his first direct attack on Protestantism and in defense of Roman Catholicism, entitled “Dissertation on the Freedom of the Will”.

D’Aubinge gives the following account of the events surrounding the book’s publication. Also, D’Aubinge analyses the book’s arguments and summarizes Luther’s reply. Notice especially the bolded parts which show how Luther viewed this issue, the role of the will, as the crux of the conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism. And after reading his views, readers, I challenge you to take a few thoughtful moments and ask yourselves which side you presently take on the issue that both Luther and Erasmus viewed the most significant distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism:

Quote:

---

Henry VIII. of England, and the nobility of that kingdom, earnestly pressed [Erasmus] to declare himself openly against the Reformation. Erasmus, in a moment of courage, suffered the promise to be wrung from him. His equivocal position had become a source of constant trouble to him; he loved repose, and the necessity he felt of continually justifying his conduct disturbed his existence; he was fond of glory, and already men were accusing him of fearing Luther, and of being too weak to answer him; he was accustomed to the highest seat, and the little monk of Wittemberg had dethroned the mighty philosopher of Rotterdam. He must then, by some bold step, recover the position he had lost. All Christendom that adhered to the old worship implored him to do so. A capacious genius and the greatest reputation of the ago were wanted to oppose the Reformation. Erasmus answered the call.



But what weapons will he employ? Will he hurl the thunders of the Vatican? Will he defend the abuses that disgrace the papacy? Erasmus could not act thus. The great movement that agitated men’s minds after the lethargy of so many centuries filled him with joy, and he would have feared to trammel it. Unable to be the champion of Romanism in what it has added to Christianity, he undertook to defend it in what it had taken away. In attacking Luther, Erasmus selected the point where Romanism is lost in Rationalism,—the doctrine of free will, or the natural power of man. Thus, while undertaking the defence of the Church, Erasmus gratified the men of the world, and while battling for the popes, he contended also on behalf of the philosophers. It has been said that he had injudiciously confined himself to an obscure and unprofitable question. Luther, the reformers, and their age, judged very differently; and we agree with them. “I must acknowledge,” said Luther, “that in this controversy you arc the only man that has gone to the root of the matter. I thank you for it with all my heart; for I would rather be occupied with this subject than with all those secondary questions about the pope, purgatory, and indulgences, with which the enemies of the Gospel have hitherto pestered me.”


His own experience and an attentive study of the Holy Scriptures and of St. Augustine, had convinced Luther that the natural powers of man are so inclined to evil, that he cannot, of himself, reach any farther than a certain outward rectitude, altogether insufficient in the eyes of the Deity. He had at the same time recognised that it was God who gives true righteousness, by carrying on freely the work of faith in man by his Holy Spirit. This doctrine had become the mainspring of his religion, the predominant idea in his theology, and the point on which the whole Reformation turned.
While Luther maintained that every good thing in man came down from God, Erasmus sided with those who thought that this good proceeded from man himself. God or man, - good or evil,- these are certainly no paltry questions; and if “trivialities” exist, they must be looked for elsewhere.



It was in the autumn of 1524 that Erasmus published his famous treatise entitled Dissertation on the Freedom of the Will; and it had no sooner appeared, than the philosopher could hardly believe his own boldness. With eyes fixed on the arena, he looked tremblingly at the gauntlet he had flung to his adversary. “The die is cast,” wrote he with emotion to Henry VIII.; “the book on free will has appeared.—Trust me, this is a dating act. I expect to be stoned for it.—. But I console myself by the example of your majesty, whom the rage of these people has not spared.”



His alarm soon increased to such a degree that he bitterly regretted the step he had taken. “Why was I not permitted to grow old in the garden of the Muses?” exclaimed he. “Here am I, at sixty, driven into the arena, and holding the cestus and the net of the gladiator, instead of the lyre!—I am aware,” wrote he to the Bishop of Rochester, “that in writing upon free will, I have gone beyond my sphere. You congratulate me upon my triumphs! Ah, I know not that I triumph. The faction (i. e. the Reformation) is spreading daily. Was it then fated, that at my time of life I should be transformed from a friend of the Muses into a wretched gladiator!”


It was no doubt an important matter for the timid Erasmus to have stood up against Luther; he was, however, far from showing any very great boldness. In his book he seems to ascribe but little to man’s will, and to leave the greater portion to Divine grace; but at the same time he chose his arguments in a manner to make it be believed that man does every thing, and God nothing. Not daring openly to express his thoughts, he affirms one thing and proves another; and hence we may be allowed to suppose that he believed what he proved and not what he affirmed.


He distinguishes three several opinions, opposed in three different degrees to Pelagianism. “Some think,” Said he, “that man can neither will, nor commence, and still less perform any good work; without the special and continual aid of Divine grace; and this opinion seems probable enough. Others teach that man’s will is powerless except for evil, and that it is grace alone which works in us any good; and finally, there are some who assert that there has never been any free will either in angels, or in Adam, or in us, either before or after grace, but that God works in man both good and evil, and that every thing happens from an absolute necessity.”



Erasmus, while seeming to admit the former of these opinions, makes use of arguments that confute it, and which the most decided Pelagian might employ. In this manner, quoting the passages of Scripture in which God offers man the choice between good and evil, he adds: “Man must therefore have the power to will and to choose; for it would be ridiculous to say to any one, Choose! when it was not in his power to do so.



Luther did not fear Erasmus. “Truth,” said he, “is mightier than eloquence. The victory remains with him who lisps out the truth, and not with him who puts forth a lie in flowing language.” But when he received Erasmus’s treatise in the month of October 1524, he found it so weak that he hesitated to reply to it. “What! so much eloquence in so bad a cause” said he; “it is as if a man were to serve up mud and dung on dishes of silver and gold. One cannot lay hold of you. You are like an eel that slips through the fingers; or like the fabulous Proteus who changes his form in the very arms of those who wish to grasp him.”



But as Luther did not reply, the monks and scholastic divines began to utter shouts of victory: “Well, where is your Luther now? Where is the great Maccabeus? Let him come down into the lists! Let him come forth! Ah, ah! He has met with his match at last! He has learnt now to remain in the back-ground; he has found out how to hold his tongue.”



Luther saw that he must write an answer; but it was not until the end of the year 1525 that he prepared to do so; and Melanethon having informed Erasmus that Luther would be moderate, the philosopher was greatly alarmed. “If I have written with moderation,” said he, “it is my disposition; but Luther possesses the wrath of Peleus’ son (Achilles). And how can it be otherwise? When a vessel braves a storm such as that which has burst upon Luther, what anchor, what ballast, what helm does it not require to prevent it from being driven out of its course! If therefore he replies to me in a manner not in accordance with his character, these sycophants will cry out that we are in collusion.” We shall see that Erasmus was soon relieved from this apprehension.


The doctrine of God’s election as the sole cause of man’s salvation had always been dear to the reformer; but hitherto he had considered it in a practical light only. In his reply to Erasmus, he investigated it particularly in a speculative point of view, and endeavoured to establish by such arguments as appeared to him most conclusive, that God works every thing in man’s conversion, and that our hearts are so alienated from the love of God that they cannot have a sincere desire for righteousness, except by the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit.



“To call our will a free will,” said he, “is to imitate those princes who accumulate long titles, styling themselves lords of sundry kingdoms, principalities, and distant islands (of Rhodes, Cyprus, and Jerusalem, &c.), while they have not the least power over them.” Here, however, Luther makes an important distinction, clearly showing that he by no means participated in the third opinion that Erasmus had pointed out and imputed to him. “Man’s will may be called a free will, not in relation to that which is above him, that is to say, to God; but with respect to that which is below, that is, to the things of the earth. As regards my property, my fields, my house, my farm, I can act, do, and manage freely. But in the things of salvation, man is a captive; he is subjected to the will of God, or rather of the devil. Show me but one of all these advocates of free will (he exclaims) that has found in himself sufficient strength to endure a trifling injury, a fit of anger, or merely a look from his enemy, and bear it with joy; then—without even asking him to be ready to give up his body, his life, his wealth, his honour, and all things—I acknowledge you have gained your cause.”


Luther’s glance was too penetrating not to discover the contradictions into which his opponent had fallen. And accordingly, in his reply, he endeavours to fasten the philosopher in the net in which he had entangled himself. “If the passages you quote,” said he, “establish that it is easy for us to do good, why do we dispute? [These points of Luther that follow would be good for Morris Vendon to consider – Mark] What need have we of Christ and of the Holy Ghost? Christ would then have acted foolishly in shedding his blood to acquire for us a power that we already possessed by nature.”



In truth, the passages cited by Erasmus must be taken in quite a different sense. This much debated question is clearer than it appears to be at first sight. When the Bible says to man, Choose, it presupposes the assistance of God’s grace, by which alone he can do what it commands. God, in giving the commandment, also gives the strength to fulfil it. If Christ said to Lazarus, Come forth, it was not that Lazarus had power to restore himself; but that Christ, by commanding him to leave the sepulchre, gave him also the strength to do so, and accompanied His words with His creative power. He spoke, and it was done. Moreover, it is very true that the man to whom God speaks, must will; it is he who wills, and not another; he can receive this will but from God alone; but it is in him that this will must be, and the very commandment that God addresses to him, and which, according to Erasmus, establishes the ability of man, is so reconcilable with the workings of God, that it is precisely by these means that the working is effected. It is by saying to the man “Be converted,” that God converts him.



But the idea on which Luther principally dwelt in his reply is, that the passages quoted by Erasmus are intended to teach man their duty, and their inability to perform it, but in no way to make known to them the pretended power ascribed to them. “How frequently it happens,” says Luther, “a father calls his feeble child to him, and says: ‘Will you come, my son! come then, come!’ in order that the child may learn to call for his assistance, and allow himself to be carried.”



After combating Erasmus’s arguments in favour of free will, Luther defends his own against the attacks of his opponent. “Dear Dissertation,” says he ironically, “mighty heroine, who pridest thyself in having overthrown these words of our Lord in St. John: ‘Without me ye can do nothing’ which thou regardest nevertheless as the prop of my argument, and callest Luther’s Achilles, listen to me. Unless thou canst prove that this word nothing, not only may, but must, signify little, all thy high-sounding phrases, thy splendid examples, have no more effect than if a man were to attempt to quench an extensive conflagration with a handful of straw. What are such assertions as these to us:
‘This may mean; that may be understood’, whilst it was thy duty to show us that it must be so understood Unless thou doest so, we take this declaration in its literal meaning, and laugh at all thy examples, thy great preparations, and thy pompous triumphs.”



Finally, in a concluding part, Luther shows, and always from Scripture, that the grace of God does every thing. “In short,” says he at the end, “since Scripture every where contrasts Christ with that which has not the spirit of Christ; since it declares that all which is not Christ and in Christ is under the power of error, darkness, the devil, death, sin, and the wrath of God, [notice here Tom that Luther lists sin and the wrath of God separately] it follows that all these passages of the Bible that speak of Christ are opposed to free will. Now such passages are numberless; the Holy Scriptures are full of them.”



We perceive that the discussion which arose between Luther and Erasmus is the same as that which a century after took place between the Jansenists and Jesuits, between Pascal and Molina. How is it that, while the results of the Reformation were so immense, Jansenism, though adorned by the noblest geniuses, wasted and died away? It is because Jansenism went back to Augustine and relied on the Fathers; while the Reformation went back to the Bible and leant upon the Word of God, It is because Jansenism entered into a compromise with Rome, and wished to establish a middle course between truth and error, while the Reformation, relying upon God alone, cleared the soil, swept away all the rubbish of past ages, and laid bare the primitive rock. To stop half way is a useless work; in all things we should persevere to the end. Accordingly, while Jansenism has passed away, the destinies of the world are bound up with evangelical Christianity.



Further, after having keenly refuted error, Luther paid a brilliant, but perhaps a somewhat sarcastic, homage to Erasmus himself. [Personally, I don’t see any sarcasm in the following statement] “I confess,” said he, “that you are a great man; where have we ever met with more learning, intelligence, or ability, both in speaking and writing? As for me, I possess nothing of the kind; there is only one thing from which I can derive any glory—I am a Christian. May God raise you infinitely above me in the knowledge of the Gospel, so that you may surpass me as much in this respect as you do already in every other.”


Erasmus was beside himself when he read Luther’s reply; and would see nothing in his encomiums but the honey of a poisoned cup, or the embrace of a serpent at the moment he darts his envenomed sting. He immediately wrote to the Elector of Saxony, demanding justice; and Luther having desired to appease him, he lost his usual temper, and, in the words of one of his most zealous apologists, began “to pour forth invectives with a broken voice amid hoary hair.”



Erasmus was vanquished. Hitherto, moderation had been his strength,—and he had lost it. Passion was his only weapon against Luther’s energy. The wise man was wanting in wisdom. He replied publicly in his ‘Hyperaspistes, accusing the reformer of barbarism, lying, and blasphemy. The philosopher even ventured on prophesying. “I prophesy,” said he, “that no name under the sun will be held in greater execration than Luther’s.” The jubilee of 1817 has replied to this prophecy, after a lapse of three hundred years, by the enthusiasm and acclamations of the whole Protestant world.



J.H. Merle D’Aubigne and H. White, “History of the Protestant Reformation of the Sixteenth Century”, Book XI, Chapter IX, Pages 415 to 417.

---

God made it possible for ALL to be saved if they choose to be.

However, mankind is confused as to what it means to "choose to be saved".

Not all who say "LORD, LORD" will be saved.
"But Lord didn't we ...... do all these great things in your name.....But the Lord says, I never knew you, you workers of iniquity.

Now Adventists do not believe in predestination -- that is we don't believe that in the beginning God made a list of all people He would call and save, and which people He wouldn't bother with. God calls all. He sends His Holy Spirit to work on the hearts of all.

It is mankind's choice to respond or to reject.

However, Adventist doctrine does not support the belief that all who claim to be saved (choose to be saved) will be saved.
The Investigative Judgment brings before the heavenly court all the names of people who have made a "claim" for salvation.

It's only those who accept Christ and are not only forgiven but cleansed by the blood of Christ and place their will UNDER the will of Christ in surrender.

God decides who really responded to His call, as opposed to who only chose because it was convient at the time.

Welcome D. Three questions for you or whomever. 1) Does God know in advance who will be saved? 2) How free are we to place our wills under the will of Christ? Can we freely choose to do that according to our desire? Where does that desire originate? In our own minds? 3) Adventists don't believe in predestination, but what does the Bible mean by predestination?