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

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

[annalex]

The original sin is the sin of Adam and Eve. The OT is very clear that sins are not passed on to the progeny

I still have the feeling that what the Orthodox Church variously calls separation from God, inclination to sin or power of death is something in essence very close if not identical to the Catholic original sin. That is because the Catholic Church does not teach that the sin of Adam and Eve was inherited as personal sin either. Original sin is an inclination to sin that we inherit hormonally, mentally, and biologically from Adam; but it does not alone condemn to hell. A personal sin, -- a sin commotted with the engaged mind, -- is what condemns to Hell.

When we teach that Mary was free from original sin we say something different that what we teach when we say that Mary was free from sin. Men or women that do not sin yet have original sin reach that state through the struggle for holiness, self-denial, and often martyrdom. Our Lady never had an inclination to sin. She never struggled. This is consistent with her serene image of the icons. She is a woman in paradise, unlike a saint who has a life time of struggle to get to paradise. While we can reach her, we cannot be her.

[annalex]

Have you ever had a roommate?

I did have a roommate. But you are imputing a roommate relationship into Jesus's relationship with His disciples. The gospels do not warrant that, -- there is always a certaion distance felt between them, as is proper between teacher and pupil.

Moreover, you are imputing the erasure of privacy that is characteristic of the modern West, into relationships of a different era, even between peers. I am not convinced that even fellow pupils in 1 Century Israel were at ease discussing the sex lives of their parents. It is hard for me to imagine that Jesus would sort out to his apostles the who is who of his large (large enough for Mary to lose him for days among various siblings) family, even more so when he several times made an effort to explain that these familial ties are less important than spiritual kinship.

There is one aspect where being a biological brother would have mattered, an that is in taking care of the aging mother. But interestingly, it was John, not James, who Jesus selected for that role.

[annalex]

What would an Italian know about Greek? :)

Maybe he, too, was doing odd jobs at Punta Zeza. I knew one Italian there, Mario. He drove a truck.

[annalex]

Jesus didn't grow up wealthy, right?

Well, we don't actually know. I suspect some of our perception of Joseph as poor is our piety and Jesus's special love for the poor. We know he had a large family (see the episode where Mary lost him among the relatives), which in those times meant financial stability if not wealth. I would suspect that carpentry provided a decent living back then. It was, after all, a high technology of the 1 century.

Obviously, Jesus chose a life of poverty, whatever his background was.

[HarleyD]

It is theological solidity that it lacks.

Shall we compare John Calvin's Institutes, Commentaries and the Westminster Confession against anything you may have? Whatever that is?

[Kolokotronis]

"Maybe the thing that surprised me the most was Mary coming from a rich family. I'm not sure why, but I always imagined her coming from humble beginnings. Jesus didn't grow up wealthy, right?"

We don't really know. Certainly Mary came from a good family and +Joseph's pedigree is a good one too. Likewise, he was a skilled craftsman. What "rich" actually means here, who knows? Certainly they were not of the ruling class in any case.

"The other thing that caught my eye was that it said that Mary was given grace at three years old. Is this the same grace that the angel mentions later?"

This passage?

"And the child was three years old, and Joachim said: Invite the daughters of the Hebrews that are undefiled, and let them take each a lamp, and let them stand with the lamps burning, that the child may not turn back, and her heart be captivated from the temple of the Lord. And they did so until they went up into the temple of the Lord. And the priest received her, and kissed her, and blessed her, saying: The Lord has magnified thy name in all generations. In thee, on the last of the days, the Lord will manifest His redemption to the sons of Israel. And he set her down upon the third step of the altar, and the Lord God sent grace upon her; and she danced with her feet, and all the house of Israel loved her."

I honestly don't know, but I don't think so. I think it may refer to a special grace she received to stay in the temple for nine years, but I'll find the time to see if the Fathers have anything to say on this. The line I have always cherished because it is so graphic is: "And he set her down upon the third step of the altar, and the Lord God sent grace upon her; and she danced with her feet, and all the house of Israel loved her." The image of little "Panagitsa" dancing before Almighty God is so wonderful!

In Orthodoxy we celebrate her entrance into the temple with a very lengthy devotion at night during which we chant:

"After thy nativity, O Lady, Bride of God, thou didst come into the temple of the Lord, as one consecrated, to be reared in the Holy of Holies. Then, also, was Gabriel sent unto thee, O all-undefiled One, bearing nourishment unto thee. All the powers of Heaven were amazed when they beheld the Holy Spirit take up its abode in thee. Wherefore, O most pure and undefiled Mother of God, who art glorified in heaven and on earth, save thou our race."

Here is an icon for the feast:

[Kolokotronis]

"The other thing that caught my eye was that it said that Mary was given grace at three years old. Is this the same grace that the angel mentions later?"

FK, in my previous post I said I doubted if this was the same grace Gabriel mentions later. I think I was wrong. The words of the chant from the Feast of the Entrance of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple answer the question:

"All the powers of Heaven were amazed when they beheld the Holy Spirit take up its abode in thee."

This line from the prayer is possibly the foundation of what Alex was refering to in 2801 when he wrote:

"Our Lady never had an inclination to sin. She never struggled. This is consistent with her serene image of the icons. She is a woman in paradise, unlike a saint who has a life time of struggle to get to paradise. While we can reach her, we cannot be her."

[annalex]

Sure, -- anything in particular that is bothering you?

[Kolokotronis]

"What would an Italian know about Greek? :)

Maybe he, too, was doing odd jobs at Punta Zeza. I knew one Italian there, Mario. He drove a truck."

Was he a leftover from the War, like in Mediterraneo? :)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/630267672X/002-1456002-0129631?v=glance

[Forest Keeper]

[On the trinity:] An easy analogy is to say that your mind generates words, and your words reflect the spirit which originates in your mind. All three are separate, yet all three are equally human, and all three are you. The mind is the source of your words and your spirit.

But before the words and spirit even exist, there is the mind that generates them. Does this mean that the Father existed before Christ and the Spirit, and that the Father created them?

But I am curious as to your idea of The Trinity, and, indeed, the duality of Christ's nature (divine and human), so maybe you can share with us your belief in that regard. I want to know how does someone form the idea and even belief in The Trinity by just reaidng the Bible, and what that idea is.

Sure, here is what the London Baptist Confession says about it, with footnotes:

In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, (d) the Father the Word (or Son) and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and Eternity, each having the whole Divine Essence, (e) yet the Essence undivided, the Father is of none neither begotten nor proceeding, the Son is (f) Eternally begotten of the Father, the holy Spirit (g) proceeding from the Father and the Son, all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and Being; but distinguished by several peculiar, relative properties, and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our Communion with God, and comfortable dependance on him. (emphasis added).

d 1 Joh. 5.7. Mat. 28.19. 2 Cor. 13.14.

e Exod. 3.14. Joh. 14.11. 1 Cor. 8.6.

f Joh. 1.14.18.

g Joh. 15.26. Gal. 4.6.

It seems to me that the idea is clearly in the scripture. I was focusing in on the part that was bolded. While the body of the man called Jesus was certainly created, I always thought of the being of the person (Christ) as being just as infinite as that of the Father. I see Jesus Christ as being both 100% God and 100% man, as opposed to 50-50. Here is more from the Confession:

The Son of God, the second Person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Fathers glory, of one substance and equal with him: who made the World, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made: did when the fullness of time was come take unto him (f) mans nature, with all the Essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, (g) yet without sin: being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her, and the power of the most High overshadowing her, (h) and so was made of a Woman, of the Tribe of Judah, of the Seed of Abraham, and David according to the Scriptures: So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, were inseparably joined together in one Person: without conversion, composition, or confusion: which Person is very God, and very Man; yet one (i) Christ, the only Mediator between God and Man.

f Joh. 1.1.14. Gal. 4.4.

g Rom. 8.3. Heb. 2.14.16,17. ch. 4.15.

h Luk. 1.27,31.35.

i Rom. 9.5. 1 Tim. 2.5.

The Lord Jesus in his humane nature thus united to the divine, in the Person of the Son, was sanctified, & anointed (k) with the Holy Spirit, above measure; having in him (l) all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that (m) all fullness should dwell: To the end that being (n) holy, harmless, undefiled, and full (o) of Grace, and Truth, he might be throughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator, and (p) Surety; which office he took not upon himself, but was thereunto (q) called by his Father; who also put (r) all power and judgement in his hand, and gave him Commandement to execute the same.

k Ps. 45.7. Act. 10.38 Joh. 3.34.

l Col. 2.3.

m Col. 1.19.

n Heb. 7.26.

o Joh. 1.14.

p Heb. 7.22.

q Heb. 5.5.

r Joh. 5.22.27. Mat. 28.18. Act. 2.36.

[annalex]

Now, can we all agree that theologically there is no difference between an embryo and a three year old, since in either case whatever comes from Adam has already come, and whatever comes from free will has not yet come?

[annalex]

No, he just drifted in, I think, although as you might imagine there was a woman involved.

[Kolokotronis]

"No, he just drifted in, I think, although as you might imagine there was a woman involved."

The sea, the sun, the wine, the olives...of course there was a woman involved. For us swarthy "magkas" Mediterranean types there's ALWAYS a woman involved! :)

[Kolokotronis]

"Now, can we all agree that theologically there is no difference between an embryo and a three year old, since in either case whatever comes from Adam has already come, and whatever comes from free will has not yet come?"

I can sorta agree with that. You've had a three year old, what do you think about their "willfulness"? :)

[annalex]

You've had a three year old, what do you think about their "willfulness"? :)

Or Ann's, who is a few decades older.

[Agrarian]

"But interestingly, it was John, not James, who Jesus selected for that role."

This is one of the most compelling points in Scripture that confirms that Mary had no other children besides Jesus. According to the tradition of the Church, St. James was probably no younger than the Virgin Mary herself, and would not have been, even as a step-son, necessarily a good choice for entrusting his mother. The fact that St. James was chosen to be the bishop of Jerusalem was probably at least in part because he was the oldest of the close followers of Christ, just as St. Peter's position as the chief of the Apostles was probably in no small part because he was the oldest of the 12.

As the youngest of the 12, St. John would be the logical choice to care for Mary. If the Virgin had other, younger children, they would have been the logical choice.

I would also point out that the same logic that has been used earlier in this thread, namely that "Matthew should have known" about the sibling issue one way or another -- this same logic should apply to the whole of Church tradition. I am unaware of any statement anywhere in the ancient writings of the Church that point to anything besides Mary remaining a virgin after giving birth to Christ.

One would expect that if the Apostles knew that Christ had blood (half) brothers, this inner tradition of the Church would have been strong enough that the tradition of Mary being a perpetual virgin would never have arisen.

At the very least, we would expect some record of polemics from the early centuries where this was contested -- by heretics, if no one else -- if there was a clear tradition that Christ had blood (half) brothers. There is no such polemical debate recorded, as far as I know.

There is of course also the question of why, from the earliest times of post New Testament Christian literature, she is referred to as "the Virgin Mary." If she had gone on to have sexual relations and bearing multiple other children, I find it hard to see why she would have received that title in the Church. We would speak of her as having been a virgin at the time of conceiving Christ, but she wouldn't have been given the title of Virgin.

Forgive me if I've repeated anything written by others.

[Forest Keeper]

This is where your theology begins to break down because it implies, in – fact it asserts – that God created evil for His purpose. When I say "created" I mean that He conceptualized the need for evil from all eternity. Needless to say, mainline Christianity would completely disagree.

Furthermore, you are bouncing back and forth between God "allowing" and "controlling" everything to the tiniest detail (predestination). If He "allows" evil, then it must exist because he wills is, and if He wills it, He causes it!

Well, nobody's perfect. :) But I still don't see the breakdown. We all agree that God created satan, right? He didn't just appear out of nothing. satan later became evil itself. Could God at any time have snapped His fingers and prevented satan from turning evil? Of course. He allowed it for His own reasons which I can't begin to fathom. So, does this mean that God created evil? I think we would both say emphatically 'NO'. He allows evil for His own purposes.

God remains in perfect control of everything by allowing the evil that He does. I believe that God does not allow all evil. For example, none of Jesus' bones were broken on the cross, which was a normal practice. Also, we are to pray to be delivered from evil, etc. Does this help explain my side?

If God is in control of everything, inlcuidng our own will, than we cannot be responsible for our sin. Only God can!

That's only true if God causes us to sin, and we don't say that. When we sin, it is totally apart from God. God may use a sin He already knows we are going to commit, or He may prevent us from committing a particular sin, but when we do sin, all the blame is on us, none is on God. God did not enter Judas, satan did.

Did God not pre-plan every step of very human being that was born or will be born? Is this not your theology? Then if it is why do you introject such concepts as being "allowed" to do something when in reality it is simply what God compels you to do.

I still haven't heard you respond to Harley's question on explaining his tagline:

Prov. 20:24 : A man's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way?

What do you think this verse means? I think it is speaking to God's sovereignty and that He really is in full control of everything. He doesn't create evil, but He does control it.

[annalex]

the same logic that has been used earlier in this thread, namely that "Matthew should have known" about the sibling issue one way or another -- this same logic should apply to the whole of Church tradition

Indeed.

[Forest Keeper]

To our disagreement on the first statement, I would ask you how long do you think Christ meant for His Church to be operative in the world? Why would He only grace the first generation of Christians with an infallible body to preach and teach all that He gave them?

I'm sure that Christ intends that His Church remains operative until His return. I do see it making sense that God graced the first generation with some special abilities in order to get the ball rolling and further establish that Christianity was real.

The way our difference breaks down to me is that we just disagree on how much God delegates. I mean, my side has gotten pounded how many times for saying that God runs everything, right? :) So, my side clearly does not believe that God abandons us if we do not accept the authority of the RCC. We believe God is in absolute control. I suppose we believe that God handles directly what you later say is what the Church does: "Christ's teaching ministry. His healing ministry. His reconciling ministry." Your view seems to be that God has given more responsibility to man, and yes I know that all this is with God's guidance. :) What can I say if I champion God's sovereignty? It's possible.

FK: "If you, however, take a verse reasonably subject to interpretation at its face value, then that is unusual for Catholicism.

That's not fair.

You're right, I shouldn't have said it that way. I'm sorry. This Romans 3 thing just gets me so frustrated sometimes. :)

Thus, as a Catholic, I COULD believe that Genesis 1-3 is not meant literally - but there is not infallible proof that God DIDN'T create the world in 6 days.

I had to change my answer here because you later say that the Church does not have an official position on this. I happen to believe in a young earth, and have always had trouble repelling the "scientific" arguments.

No, brother, we do look at the literal interpretations - such as John 6:48-58...

LOL! :)

When people see our actions, they give glory to God. They recognize Christ working in the world today, 2006, not just in 33 AD. Thus, we are the CONTINUATION of the enfleshment of the Word of God. WE, the Body of Christ, continue His earthly presence, making visible the love of God for mankind.

Thank you for the verses, and I do agree with what you are saying in this section. I'm just not wild about the idea of being left out of the ministry. :) Our side feels like we participate in the Great Commission too.

In other words, if a person has an "experience" of God being a Duality, rather than a Trinity of One God, how would you know WHICH experience is correct?

Well, at least in this example, wouldn't the Bible be able to take care of this itself?

FK: But even good Catholics cannot agree on it. Even good hierarchy cannot agree on it.

All "good" Catholics agree on infallible teachings of the faith. ...

I think when I said this I was thinking of all the disagreements among the Fathers on various issues as have been noted on this thread. Is the answer that at the time, these issues had not been resolved infallibly?

If Jesus could do something that the Father was not doing or involved in, we'd have two Gods, correct?

Yes, that's how I see it as well.

That is incorrect. A mortal sin, whether it is murder, or stealing, or whatever, is a sin that "kills" the sanctifying grace that is within us. We no longer can enter heaven in this state.

You are saying what I thought it meant, so I just stated it poorly. I thought that a mortal sin did separate the person from God, which is certainly serious, but I was surprised at how "small" a sin it would (intuitively) take to reach the level of mortal sin. I was trying to say that "mortal sin" sounds like a big sin, but it doesn't have to be by what most people would consider "big sin". What puzzled me is that I thought mortal sins were much more common than what the name sounds like, and you seemed to hint that they are relatively rare?

God Bless

[Agrarian]

St. Gregory Palamas said, as I recall, that the Theotokos achieved theosis at the time of her Entrance into the Temple at age 3. Her ascending the steps to the temple and being brought into the Holy of Holies was both a physical depiction of her inner ascent and a recognition of her state of theois.

He said that at the time of the Annunciation until her giving birth, the Theotokos was in the highest state of union of God possible, since her flesh and blood and Christ's flesh were as closely entwined as is humanly possible.

He stated that it is this period of 9 months that places the experience of theosis that the Theotokos had at a level that no other human will ever experience, since no-one else will ever be physically joined to God like that.

This is why, although she is "just" a human like the rest of us with no special prevenient grace or anything, that the Theotokos has such an exalted place in our veneration of the saints. There was never any question, from the earliest days of the Church, whether anyone would come along later who would be a more God-filled saint than she.