Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will

Protestant Reformed Theological Journal ^ | April 1999 | Garrett J. Eriks

[HarleyD]

that mariophobic translations, that abounded in modern times and Harley is using, mistranslate it as "until". It is most similar to the English "till" which also does not have the strict "before, but not after" meaning.

It should be pointed out this is John Calvin's argument for the reason that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Although the word "until" (or "til" take your pick) is used, Rev Calvin states this does not necessarily mean that Mary HAD sex afterwards. Personally I think this strain credibility for the conjunction "until" (or "til") is a transitional statement.

Also in regards to eos the definition is “…to continue up to a particular time”. The word is also used in such places as “until a thousand years are finished” (Rev 20:5). Clearly something is going to happen after that.

I disagree with Calvin's interpretation nor do I find anything convincing me otherwise in your analysis. You would have to explain this transitional statement in conjunction with the "brothers" statement by Jesus in Matt (and I believe Luke), Paul's statement of the Lord's brothers in 1 Cor 9:5 and the beginning of the book of James.

As to the "brothers", Jesus Himself loved calling people brothers

Like this:

Matt 12:48-50 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Or….

Matt 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Oops, wrong one. ;O)

Eve doesn’t just listen to Satan and makes some “intellectual” choice; she is deceived by Satan, a very distinct difference. Fooled, duped. That's why she is in subjection to men. If you would like to convince me otherwise you will have to provide an answer to where Paul states this to be the case-twice!

As I stated in the above post to Forest Keeper, this isn’t “mariophobic”. It’s an attempt by the Roman Catholic Church to base a skewed doctrine on something that really isn’t there. The Mary/Eve comparison is a good case. Now if you want to say Mary was duped by the angel then that's a different issue-something I'd disagree with.

BTW-Let me know when the correct the Latin Vulgate or even the Doury-Rheims versions.

[Bohemund]

One more note of interest as I was looking something up. Please look at how the Catholics interpret Gen 3:15

Book of Genesis (3:15): "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

And here is the actual translation from the Hebrew:

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Where did you find that translation? Here is the modern, approved Catholic translation:

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

And in a footnote:

3 [15] He will strike . . . at his heel: since the antecedent for he and his is the collective noun offspring, i.e., all the descendants of the woman, a more exact rendering of the sacred writer's words would be, "They will strike . . . at their heels." However, later theology saw in this passage more than unending hostility between snakes and men. The serpent was regarded as the devil (Wisdom 2:24; John 8:44; Rev 12:9; 20:2), whose eventual defeat seems implied in the contrast between head and heel. Because "the Son of God appeared that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8), the passage can be understood as the first promise of a Redeemer for fallen mankind. The woman's offspring then is primarily Jesus Christ.

[annalex]

I did not understand the first part of your post. Yes, the quote illustrates how non-relatives are called brothers and no, I don't think you can be convinced by the scripture no matter what I do to read it or explain it to you. Like, was Lot Abraham's brother?

Mary and Eve are symmetrical. Eve uses her senses to taste the fruit, -- the scientific method,-- and follows Satan. Mary uses logic and word of God, -- theological method, -- and follows God. Naturally, Eve is deceived and Mary is enlightened.

[kosta50]

FK, you can respect but not love, but you can't love and not respect. Since God loves us, so He respects us.

[Forest Keeper]

Let's look at what His dual nature means. Jesus is a Man, not God "dressed" to look like a Man, but flesh and blood as we are. Jesus suffered and died on the Cross. The Word did not die or suffer. Jesus felt pain, hunger, thirst, fear. Are you denying that? Did He not ask His Father if the ordeal He was about to go through could not somehow "pass" Him (cf Mat 26:39)?

I suppose I would characterize it as Jesus being fully both 100% God and 100% man. I admit I can't explain the mechanics. :) Since Jesus never sinned, I would say that His divinity trumped His humanity on many things. Whether or not Jesus experienced fear is a good question. I would have to say 'No'. He certainly didn't seem to exhibit any while in the direct presence of satan. That would have caused me perhaps a little fear. :) Also, the concept of fear involves doubt and uncertainty. I don't believe that Jesus had these characteristics.

I believe the verse you cite is talking about the apprehension of Jesus not wanting to be separated from the Father. Who would want that? But of course Jesus readily accepts what He must endure. I don't believe He did it in fear, but maybe with sadness. I believe this verse is partly meant as a lesson for us about devotion.

In order to stress His dual nature, the Orthodox always say Jesus Christ (Jesus the Savior) and refer to Jesus alone only when it is His humanity that is the subject.

Oh, I didn't realize that, that sounds reasonable, thank you.

Yes, Jesus was subject to passions -- and that does not mean, as you say, that he lusted after someone's wife! Passions are simple desires that come from the flesh -- whether it be thirst or lust, pleasure or pain, or fear. Passions are our corruption and giving in to passions is sin -- as Kolo says -- missing the mark.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure of the point you are making here. Jesus was subject to temptation, but not to sin. I don't see "passion" as necessarily a bad thing at all, although it certainly can be. One passion is anger, which Jesus clearly showed on more than one occasion. However, since it was a righteous anger, it was not sin. Jesus was also passionate about His love for the Father and about His love for us. Why do you say there must be corruption?

[Forest Keeper]

FK I was using generic names. It was not personal, trust me.

No offense taken. :)

Just how can man's free will, or for that matter anything man does thwart God's plan? Isn't it God's will for man to be, and to be free, rational, moral being, in His image and likeness? How are those who abuse their will thwart God's plan, FK?

Actually, I was challenging you because I thought that's what you are saying. I don't think there is anything we can do to thwart God's plan. (Each person among the elect is touched and saved, and each person not of the elect is passed over and not saved.) I thought that through your belief in man's free will, that man frequently chooses against what God wants, as you would say, all to be saved. Since all are not saved, God does not get what He wants because of man's free will.

If my goal is to give every homeless person $1,000,000 and some of them spend it foolishly and end up being as broke as they were before, whose fault is that?

It is YOUR fault if you loved them! If you truly loved them you would have found out what their needs were, as well as their abilities to deal with money, their levels of responsibility, etc. If these were suspect you would have set up trusts with specific provisions. You would have done this to protect the homeless person against himself. I think God does that for us. I don't think He gives us grace and then walks away, waiting to see what happens. I believe God takes an active role in bringing His elect home to Him.

[kosta50]

Since Jesus never sinned, I would say that His divinity trumped His humanity on many things

I am not sure if your views reflect Apollonarian or Monothelite heresy, or both for that matter. The former (4th century) held that Jesus Christ had human body and a divine nature, and the latter (7th century) that He had two natures but one (divine) will.

Trumpling His own will would be unthinkable in a perfect union of two natures in one Person of our Savior.

Also, the concept of fear involves doubt and uncertainty. I don't believe that Jesus had these characteristics.

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" This is the most chilling moment in the entire Gospel. It is here that He takes on the sin of the hole world and finds Himself separated from His own essence. He was saying the same thing we say when we feel that God has become "distant" (when in fact we have distanced ourselves from Him). Jesus fully experienced all that we experience, including pain, hungar and death. Or do you deny that He actually died?

And while He was without sin, Jesus was mortal because He was fully human. If He was mortal, He was subject to passions and corruption, the ultimate of which is death.

[Kolokotronis]

I'm with Kosta on this one, FK!

[kosta50]

I thought that through your belief in man's free will, that man frequently chooses against what God wants, as you would say, all to be saved. Since all are not saved, God does not get what He wants because of man's free will

It's not what I say, but what the Scripture says, FK. And, yes, through his will man frequently chooses against what God wants -- and ends up hurting himself only, but not God. God does not wait to see what will happen to us; he already knows what has happened to us (in our future) as a result of our foolishness. You seem to have difficulty (quite understandibly) comprehending the concept of transcendetal God, and speak of Him as if He is somehow contrained by time.

[jo kus]

The last person I see in him is Christ

There are a number of "Christians" who fit that description. St John Vianney said...

"A person who loves pleasure, flies from any suffering, is over-anxious, complains, blames, and impatient at the least thing that is not in his favor is a Christian in name only. If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself daily and follow me (Luke 9:23)"

That's a pretty strict definition of a Christian, wouldn't you agree? But truthfully, it is the intent of Christ that we DO follow Him in the manner the Cur de Ars says.

An excellent answer (Gal 1:10), thanks

I have two Scripture quotes on the side of my monitor here at home. One is Gal 1:10, a reminder to myself as I minister to others. The other is Gal 5:24, which is at the heart of St. Vianney's quote. Look it up. This is why we mortify ourselves. Only by fulfilling Gal 5:24 can we advance beyond "basic Christian". REAL Christianity is not easy...

I also think that God teaches that we shouldn't beat ourselves up about such a loved one, I didn't witness to her enough, etc. Satan is the accuser, not God. So, I'll find out when I find out, and whatever the answer is, I'll be able through God to accept it

I imagine that this was not an easy road to take for you. We wish the best for our loved ones, but we have to let them suffer the consequences of their own actions. We can only leave them to the Merciful Hands of God.

Brother in Christ

[Forest Keeper]

You see, the Jews looked at Him with that simplistic point of view and thought: if He is the Son of God, He neither looks the part nor does He act as one.

Yes, I agree. The Jews were expecting a warrior Prince who would slay His enemies with a mighty sword. Instead, Christ prayed for His enemies. This bewildered many Jews.

[Kolokotronis]

"OK, then would you equate sin with "evil", as I would? Or, is "missing the mark" more like mistake, or something else? How do you see the concept of evil?"

One of the problems with Western praxis is this idea of a sort of incohate "evil". The last words of the Our Father are a good example "...but deliver us from evil". In fact the Greek says "...but deliver us from the Evil One". The Evil One and his demons may lead us to so live our lives as to fail to become "like Christ", to miss the mark. If we commit murder, have we sinned? Yes and we have done an evil thing. If we lead our lives in such a way as to fail to "die to the self" but rather lead a life of self-fulfillment, not by committing any of the seven dealy sins, but perhaps by a life of study of ancient pottery and hurt no one, have we committed evil? No, but have we missed the mark and thus sinned? Yes.

I think Kosta answered the first question. I would only add that for Christ to "sin" he would have to un Christ-like, an odd thought.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "It sounds like you are saying that only the unsaved can be baptized meaningfully."

Only the unbaptized can be baptized meaningfully, FK.

I thought that you had gathered from the posts of myself, and others who agree, that our belief is that only a believer's Baptism is meaningful. I was wondering if your side puts any meaning into a believer's baptism if the person was baptized as an infant earlier. I ask because your tradition has thrown out the clear order in the Bible of salvation and Baptism and completely reversed it.

What baptism does is open our spiritual eyes so that we can choose God over sin.

Catholics have referred to Baptism as "initial salvation". Is there such a thing as "initial theosis", or are these ideas not really comparable?

[kosta50]

I am including Kolo on this because he may shed more light than I on these questions, and I know he won't mind

I ask because your tradition has thrown out the clear order in the Bible of salvation and Baptism and completely reversed it

Huh? I think you have this backward. Church documents show that the Church baptized whole families, mama and papa bear and little bears. :-)

There is nothing in the Scripture whatsoever that says you must be "of age" to be baptized. Baptism is simply washing away the grime that comes from our corrupt nature, the patina that forms on out souls as it does on copper.

It's like a windowasher on your windshield covered with grime. Once washed, you can see where you are going and can make right decisions where to go. But, because we continue to sin, the windshield gets dirty over and over again, and needs period cleaning so that we stay on course.

Unlike some Protestants, we believe that Baptism is never bad or ineffectual. One can certainly not go wrong by being baptized no matter what the age. The trick is to keep ones self reasonably clean and that becomes pertinent at the "age of reason" (whatever that may mean).

Unlike Roman Catholics we don't speculate what happens to unbaptized babies who die. Whatever God decides to do with them is merciful and just, and we don't go beyond that.

But to go back to your question "It sounds like you are saying that only the unsaved can be baptized meaningfully" I answer again that only the unbaptized can be baptized meaningfully. The Church has always held to only one baptism (that is -- one valid baptism). Those who are unbaptized are most likely never going to be saved, God's free will notwithstanding. So, as Christians, we are commanded by our Lord to baptize. To not baptize is to go against His commandment.

there such a thing as "initial theosis", or are these ideas not really comparable?

There is such a thing but it has nothing to do with baptism. Initial theosis would be the beginning of a life in Christ. Theosis is not a moment of, but living in faith. How does one come to God is different for each individual. God certainly makes the first call. Some come to God after a terrible tragedy reminds them of the passing nature of this world, others find God after actively resisting Him, others yet find God through friends, through church, etc. The moment God becomes present in your life is the moment of "initial theosis." But it is up to you to cling on to God as you continue the struggle.

[kosta50]

Yes, I agree. The Jews were expecting a warrior Prince who would slay His enemies with a mighty sword

Christ showed us that the real man God created in His image was nothing like the brute that we call man, that God is not a Tyrant, and that He is everything that we are not.

[Forest Keeper]

What did I do now??? ;)

You're off the hook on this one, brother. :)

[Forest Keeper]

If it needs interpretation, then it's not literal FK. That's what literal means. We are not going to get into that "depends what is the meaning of 'is'" legal obfuscation thing, are we?

No, there is no need to be legalistic, it is just what the word means. You seem to reject some correct meanings and usages of the word. I used the word "literal" to mean "actual". Any linguist will tell you that is perfectly correct. I just believe the Bible contains the actual words of God, not filtered through fallible men. How else could the Bible have any credibility? Jesus is clear that some of God's actual words were meant to be interpreted, such as parables.

[HarleyD]

Where did you find that translation? Here is the modern, approved Catholic translation:

Actually I found it on the Catholic website "www.newadvent.org". I also checked my Douay-Rheims 1899 version. My quote was accurate per newadvent and my old text. I just can't keep up with all the Catholics new fangle translations. :O)

I will add your footnote is interesting:

all the descendants of the woman, a more exact rendering of the sacred writer's words would be, "They will strike . . . at their heels." However, later theology saw in this passage more than unending hostility between snakes and men.

Even though the passage has been corrected (for the most part) the footnote still cannot give up the Catholic dogma of believing this passage refers to Mary as well as Christ. If the theology was considered "later" it is simply because of the mistranslation of the 1500+ year old Latin Vulgate.

The phrase "his heel" is used one other place in scripture and it also is used in the masculine sense (his-not "their"):

Jhn 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

[HarleyD]

Eve uses her senses to taste the fruit, -- the scientific method,-- and follows Satan. ...Naturally, Eve is deceived

Being "deceived" is NOT the scientific method. I'm sure I have the backing of the scientific community on this one.

[HarleyD]

If you truly loved them you would have found out what their needs were, as well as their abilities to deal with money, their levels of responsibility, etc. If these were suspect you would have set up trusts with specific provisions. You would have done this to protect the homeless person against himself. I think God does that for us.

Absolutely correct!!! God doesn't let us bounce around like some cosmic pinballs. He knows what is best for us and He gives us what we need or withholds His hand for our benefit.