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

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

[jo kus]

I suppose I don't know that it is specifically prohibited. However, in all the examples in the Bible of someone getting baptized, were they not all passed the age of reason, and believers?

We don't KNOW that, because the Scriptures refer to whole families being baptised. Who knows if that includes an infant or not. I would say that it would be perfectly natural to baptise a baby for a Jewish Christian because of its parellelism to circumcision, as Paul mentions in Col 2.

HA! Listen to the pot ... :)

What's he saying?

In the case above, where someone suffers an extreme experience, who would you say is responsible for the falling away? Is it the free will decision of the individual?

Men and women always have a choice on such matters. They can continue to trust in God, like Job did, or they can fall away like Saul did.

I would assume plenty of people! :) I know I have asked myself a hundred times how people could have witnessed things like the parting of the red sea, and then a short time later organized a full blown orgy!

Well, that's my point when I say that faith can ebb and flow depending on the day of the week or the mood of society. Things today are not guaranteed tommorrow. Who knows what might happen. The Israelites are a good example of this.

I gave her an offer she couldn't refuse. :)

LOL! Sure she could have refused you! But she trusted your word that you would care for her and love her. If she didn't trust in you when you said you loved her, she would have refused. Thus, she DID have free will - by analyzing you and your actions, she determined that you were worth the time. In the same way, we are given a choice with God. We must trust in His promises - promises that are in the future - and sometimes, promises that seem pretty far-fetched in the face of what people experience in the world today (for example, if God is so powerful, why do people suffer - this adds a dimension of doubt to the promise...) Thus, even regarding our relationship with God, WE must make a choice, and believe me, it is not automatic for us!

Regards

[jo kus]

But then, that is much of our disagreement in a nutshell, isn't it? The lack of centralization, codification, consistency, etc. in Orthodoxy drives Catholics crazy. Catholic juridical approaches to the faith drive us crazy. Fortunately, we are both happy where we are.

Our Churches formed in different cultures and backgrounds. It is not surprising that one focuses on one thing, and the other focuses on something else. Neither of us has the perfect answer - life is not black and white. People approach the faith differently, and I don't think either is necessary wrong, just different. Thus, I don't like to criticize the Orthodox for their stance regarding divorce. I don't see it as a dogmatic teaching of the faith. Perhaps estabishing an ideal, that in practical terms will fail, sets us Catholics up for the potential that appears that we are dismissing that a sin has occured. But this is what our Church has taught and continues to teach. It is OUR expression of coming to God, to move towards the ideal, just as the Orthodox have their own particular expressions. Thanks for your insight on this issue. You have presented me an interesting point of view regarding annulment.

Regards

[jo kus]

Is there a standardized protocol for when to go to confession? I mean, is it done on an "as needed" basis, or is it better to go regularly, say, once a week or once a month?

One of the Church's precepts is that we go to Confession at least once a year. This is like a doctor telling us we should eat at least 500 calories a day! For us, receiving the sacraments is paramount to the Christian life. We receive Christ's graces through them. We are told to go to confession when we have sinned mortally. Also, we are encouraged to go more often to help us combat our other faults that re-occur, the sins that we seem to commit all the time. By directing our attention to them through the examination of self and confession, we are aided to help fight these sins.

God's children can fall away and cease being His children, or as you clarify, "disinherit themselves". I disagree concerning the elect.

First, Baptism leaves an indelible mark. We will always be God's children. But as a result of our own separation, we walk away from God - sometimes, permanently - just like children sometimes disown their own parents (although they are still children of their parents). Regarding the elect, I agree with you. They will always be brought back. But I will disagree with you until the end that you or I KNOW we are of the elect. Thus, we OURSELVES cannot make the claim that we will NEVER turn away from God. We just don't know.

Would that have meant that the son disinherited himself? I would say that's impossible because the son already received his rightful inheritance before he even left.

I think that takes the story beyond what Christ meant. Otherwise, there would be no reason to return to the Father.

It was impossible for the son to disinherit himself, just as it is impossible for the elect to do the same. No one can snatch us out of His hands.

How was it "impossible"? If the son never returned, he disinherits himself from his father. We aren't talking about his money - he spent all of that. The elect cannot disinherit themselves, because God will cause something (famine) to happen that He knows will turn the man's free will back onto course. Does God do this for others? Yes, but their free will will resist God's "famines". The Progigal Son realized he had sinned. Those that God foresees are the reprobate will NOT realize they have sinned - even despite the famines of their lives.

Again over and over again, we don't know we are of the elect. All of this talk about "the elect will prevail", is a moot point, because we don't know we are absolutely of the elect before that day of judgment. THEN, we will be able to look back on our life and see how we chose God. We will see that we were of the elect all along. But we don't know that now. There is no way we can predict our future with our human knowledge. God knows. But we don't.

Regards

[HarleyD]

God doesn't need to predict anything! He sees everything in time as one event

Then God didn't die for ALL men because He already saw that ALL men would not accept Him.

God knows what man will choose because He sees it all at once. ...God sees that the people will NOT choose life.

Hmmmmm...where have I heard this before?.....

Faith comes from God as a gift. Then, He commands us to use it. But He doesn't force us to use His gifts.

You just told me in paragraph one that God knows what everyone is going to do. Why would He give faith to everyone if their not going to use it? And if you have "faith" doesn't that mean you have "faith"?

[jo kus]

If the origin is uncertain, how can you know the Apostles taught infant baptism? You can take certainty from what was only passed down orally, until the writers you cite? Tertullian could have been right, but how can you know for sure? I take it that since I'm not the first to ask, that this is what Councils are for.

Men of that era make the claim that the practice originated with the Apostles and their generation. This is something one wouldn't write if there was contrary evidence, or if people knew it was not true. If there was a "rule" regarding baptism that said "only adults could receive" that people knew about during that time, could Tertullian write that it was an "ancient practice"? When we say it comes from the Apostles, we mean it comes from that era of time. We presume that if some teaching is verified by an otherwise Catholic writer of the era, then it comes from the Apostolic teaching. The people reading these writings would have been aware of any false teachings - they had already heard the Apostolic teachings, both orally and written. They would be able to identify whether Tertullian was speaking truly.

This is like someone today writing about President Nixon. People would be able to verify whether Nixon did this or that. Thus, future readers would learn something about Nixon - presuming that the writer was not contradicted by other authors of that era. We don't see disagreement regarding infant baptism.

I take it that since I'm not the first to ask, that this is what Councils are for.

Councils are to verify what is the true teaching in the face of contradictory teachings. Thus, the Council of Trent verified Tertullian and Origen, etc., on the Church's practice of infant baptism in the face of the Anabaptists of the 1500's who were teaching the opposite.

Regards

[annalex]

Our Churches formed in different cultures and backgrounds.

And we can trace differences in the historical backgrounds as differences in approach. Catholic legalism goes back to the feudal political decentralization, where the Church, unable to rely on the feudal protostate delivering justice had to provide her own law. In contrast to that, the Orthodox Church had a full cooperation of a centralized state, Byzantium or the White Tsar during her formative years.

When the state became powerful in the Orthodox experience it became not merely non-cooperative but outright hostile. Such were the Chaliphate, the Ottoman Empire and the Soviet Union. This also favored autokephalous ethnic guerilla Churches operating in survival mode under the radar of the state. In contrast, again, Rome has not faced a hostile state all that much, but more typically loyal opposition of the German emperors or philosophical schisms of Protestantism and Enlightenment. These conflicts were better fought from a unified ideological postion.

[jo kus]

Then God didn't die for ALL men because He already saw that ALL men would not accept Him.

Sure He did. If I give a gift to you, and you don't use it, I still gave it to you, didn't I?

You just told me in paragraph one that God knows what everyone is going to do. Why would He give faith to everyone if their not going to use it? And if you have "faith" doesn't that mean you have "faith"?

God gives everyone the potential to utilize the gifts given. Why? Because God is just. Why? Because God is Love. Love gives of itself UNCONDITIONALLY. You are thinking in human terms. WE don't love people who don't love us back. Christ taught us a new way. "Even the pagans love those who love them". We are called to love even our enemies - just like God does. Thus, even though the reprobate are "enemies" of God, He still loves them and provided them with ample evidence of His existence and His graces to turn to Him. Like the Pharisees, they did/will not

God would not be Love if He didn't love unconditionally.

Regards

[Agrarian]

"People approach the faith differently, and I don't think either is necessary wrong, just different. Thus, I don't like to criticize the Orthodox for their stance regarding divorce."

I quite agree that there certainly needs to be room for latitude, since even in the days of complete unity in the Church, there was never complete uniformity of practice. Some of your Catholic brothers on this forum would disagree with you, though. Some have said that having Orthodox practice conform to Catholic practice with regard to marriage and divorce needs to be a prerequisite to any union -- even going so far as to imply that it, along with the Pope stuff, was really the only non-negotiable.

I really don't care, since neither I nor my great-grandchildren will ever see union between Orthodoxy and Catholicism (although I do think it will eventually happen in a couple of centuries.) I just found it to be an interesting choice of something to make non-negotiable.

We did indeed have a good discussion, and I certainly wish you the best in trying to improve the state of marriage in your church.

[jo kus]

Some of your Catholic brothers on this forum would disagree with you, though. Some have said that having Orthodox practice conform to Catholic practice with regard to marriage and divorce needs to be a prerequisite to any union -- even going so far as to imply that it, along with the Pope stuff, was really the only non-negotiable.

Frankly, I DO disagree with them, because this is not an article of faith, such as found in the Nicean Creed. While some may argue that it is Apostolic Tradition, I am not aware of the Pope or a Council making an infallible declaration that outlaws divorce or that annulments are the manner for separation of couples. Since these rules are in the Code of Canon Law, I would take them to be more ecclesiastical laws rather than "divine" Law. However, this is opinion from me and is in no wise official. Perhaps someone may correct me from the Catholic side?

I do realize, though, that as Catholics, we bind ourselves to the Laws of the Church, even if they are not solemnly and infallibly declared. This is because we believe that Christ gave the Apostles authority to bind and loosen. Thus, our conscience is to be formed by the teachings of the Church - which come to us at different levels. Some are infallible articles of the faith, others are ecclesiastical. In both cases, we are bound to obey them. I understand the Catholic Church's point of view on seeing that Christ abrogated the Mosaic Law - but I also understand your point of view. Thus, I am happy that I am not a priest! Being pastoral means that sometimes, we take care of the person first, the laws second. "The Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath".

I wish you the best, as well. I again appreciate your discussion and your perspective, one that I hadn't considered before. Thanks for broadening my view on the subject.

Brother in Christ

[HarleyD]

Sure He did. If I give a gift to you, and you don't use it, I still gave it to you, didn't I?

Tsk, tsk. Sound like you're saying you must do something for your salvation. Not exactly the grace of God is it?

God gives everyone the potential to utilize the gifts given. Why? Because God is Love. Love gives of itself UNCONDITIONALLY. You are thinking in human terms.

Faith is a gift (Eph 2:8,9). Not all men have faith (2 Thess 3:2). Therefore God does not give His give to everyone.

I am thinking in Biblical terms. Not in the lovey-dovey Greek philosophical terms.

[Forest Keeper]

When I say that there is a hierarchy in Scripture for the Orthodox, I want to make sure that it is clear that I do not mean that we consider one part to be Scriptural and another not.

Thank you for the clarification.

Part of why you are perhaps running into some problems in understanding Tradition is that the word "authority" has difference connotations and meaning to us Orthodox than it does to Catholics. Catholicism has a tendency to dogmatize things and say that this or that must be believed if one is to be a Christian. The Orthodox Church rarely takes that approach.

I think you are probably right, as I did not understand this difference. Thanks for mentioning it.

[kosta50]

Then why does every purely human man who has ever lived always chosen sin over God without His help?

It is in our nature to believe that which we can see, taste and feel.

When we make a decision, we make a decision that we believe is good for us first and foremost. In doing that, we exclude God, and without God everything we do, even our life, is meaningles -- it's a Lie (and therefore the domain of satan); as opposed to God, who is Truth.

I would dare say that even those who go to church do so because of selfish reasons -- they believe it is good for them; certainly God doesn't need us. Apostolic Christians (Orthodox/Catholic) go to church to receive sacraments, in line with Church teaching that we need to.

Protestants, on the other hand, have no sacraments to receive from valid clergy, so why do they even go to church? To glorify God, we all say. But is it?

Take out salvation and count the number of people who come to church on the fingers of one hand. No one goes to church to glorify God, but to seek favor, to assure salvation, life everlasting.

So, you see, even when you think you are doing good, if you are doing it for yourself, you are committing evil because your motives are not to glorify God, but to profit from Him. Take out the profit and the churches would empty in a blink of an eye.

The 100% to zero is simply true because we do not love God with all our heart, mind and soul; nor do we love our nieghbor as oursleves. Not because we can't but because we won't; because we choose not to.

When I asked you a hypothetical question if you would kill your children on God's command, you answered wisely -- hoping it would be the same as with Abraham! But I doubt that you would ever honestly raise a sword to kill your children in good faith without questioning God (and thereby committing sin).

That's what +Paul means when he says that none are righteous, not one. Not one of us can say "Thy will be done" and accept whatever comes our way in peace and complete tranquility knowing that whatever happens to us will be infinitely merciful anf just. We all doubt God, FK, and we all seek assurances because of that doubt which we do not like to admit. But, doubt it is. No one, not one, has complete confidence in God or else we would never choose evil.

[kosta50]

lovey-dovey terms

The Old Testament has two pages of "love" on my search engine; the New Testament has nine. It is clear where your heart is.

[kosta50]

Perfect is defined as "lacking nothing essential to the whole"

So, then, there is a possibility that God could lack some "non-essential" things! It must be true,it says so in the dictionary, right HD? In the case of Eve, what was lacking was also non-esesnetial accroding to your logic: wisdom and knowledge. Who needs those?

You are priceless.

[jo kus]

Tsk, tsk. Sound like you're saying you must do something for your salvation. Not exactly the grace of God is it?

Of course we must do something for salvation! Are you a quietist? Jesus called us to "Repent and believe". Is this not DOING something? We aren't earning salvation, but we are told to CHOOSE God. Again and again...

Let me give you a quote from St. John Crysostom's Homily on 2 Thessalonians (chapter 3, verse 3 - which coincides with your verse from 2 Thes 3:2). "Do not doubt it. God is faithful. He has promised salvation, He will save you. But, as He said, He will do so on one condition - that we love Him, that we listen to His Word and His Law. He will not save us unless we cooperate"

St. Augustine says nearly the same thing, as I have quoted before. Tradition clearly teaches the reality of sufficient grace, which through man's fault remains inefficacious.

Again, St. Augustine says "His mercy comes before us in everything. But to assent to or dissent from the call of God is a matter of one's own will" (De Spiritu et litt. 34,60)

Faith is a gift (Eph 2:8,9). Not all men have faith (2 Thess 3:2). Therefore God does not give His give to everyone.

Paul is not making the statement that you are implying - that God does not give His gifts to everyone. Here in 2 Thes., Paul is refering to the wicked and evil men - probably a reference to certain Jews hostile to Christianity who had persecuted Paul in Macedonia and were now putting obstacles in his way elsewhere. A few verses later, Paul says : "Now we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks out of order, and not after the doctrine which ye received of us." (2 Thess 3:6). It seems that Paul is trying to guard the flock under his care against these same "wicked and evil men" of 4 verses prior - those Jews who are against the Gospel, who are obstinate in their opinions of how God operates. Jesus faced the same type of men during His ministry. Thus, I don't see these verses in the same light as you do

Couple this with other verses in Scripture that tell us that men CAN refuse the grace of God:

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers [did], so [do] ye." Acts 7:51

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that didst kill the prophets and stone those who are sent unto thee, how often I desired to gather thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!" Mat 23:37

I find this one pretty convincing that God is a God of universal love...It is quite similar to one of my favorite passages in the Psalms, the God who pleads for us...

"I [am] the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt; open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it. But my people did not hearken to my voice, and Israel did not love me. So I gave them up unto the hardness of their heart, [and] they walked in their own counsels. Oh, if my people would hearken unto me [and] Israel would walk in my ways!" Ps 81:10-13

God greatly desires that we choose Him. Can't you hear it in His "voice"?

"But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he has committed and keep all my statutes and live according to judgment and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his rebellions that he has committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him; by his righteousness that he has done he shall live. Do I desire perchance the death of the wicked? said the Lord GOD, Shall he not live if he should leave his ways? " Ez 18:21-24

This section continues that the righteous will lose their "status" with God if they sin...

"But if the righteous should leave his righteousness and commit iniquity, [and] do according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] does, shall he live? All his righteousness that he has done shall not be mentioned; by his rebellion in which he has trespassed and by his sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die" Ez 19:24-25. So much for "once saved, always saved..."

And finally, Paul writes:

"We then, [as] workers together [with him], exhort [you] also that ye have not received the grace of God in vain." 2 Cor 6:1

"Follow peace with everyone and holiness, without which no one shall see the Lord: looking diligently that no one deviate from the grace of God, lest any root of bitterness springing up impede [you], and thereby many be defiled." Heb 13:14-15

"This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, so that according to past prophecies regarding thee, that thou by them might war a good warfare; holding fast faith and a good conscience, which some, having cast away, have shipwrecked in [their] faith" 1 Tim 1:18-19

For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful hope of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. Heb 10:26-27

God desires that all men be saved. He grants His graces to people - and allows them to choose life or death. Oh, yes, brother, we can choose death. Even we can allow our faith to falter and grace to fall on us in vain...

I am thinking in Biblical terms. Not in the lovey-dovey Greek philosophical terms.

I don't know how Greek philosophy is "lovey-dovey". That's a new one for me, seeing how they taught that God is so far transcendant from man that He requires a Logos to come to man. But I do know that you are not thinking in Biblical terms as per how the Apostles interpreted the Scriptures.

Regards

[HarleyD]

The Old Testament has two pages of "love" on my search engine; the New Testament has nine. It is clear where your heart is.

God is loving, merciful and gracious.

God is also jealous, wrathful and protects His holiness.

I see and understand both sets of attributes of God. You wish to ignore the second.

[HarleyD]

In the case of Eve, what was lacking was also non-esesnetial accroding to your logic: wisdom and knowledge.

It wasn't very smart of Eve to take the fruit now was it?

You are priceless.

Not quite. I was bought with a PRICE. ;O)

[Agrarian]

Here are some relevant portions from from St. John of Damascus that you might find to be of interest. I chose him because his summary of Orthodox teaching is one of the most concise and easily accessible summaries of patristic thought. Note that St. John, following his understanding of Scripture and the fathers, indicates that what we humans would consider to be "eternity" is itself a created thing, and that God transcends it.

Interesting as this all is, I do not think I have encountered anywhere in Orthodoxy the idea that man was created outside of time, in the sense of transcending time as God does. I do not recall any Father ever saying that the account in Genesis 2 trumps the account in Genesis 1 -- i.e. that God created man with a physical body and a soul before the creation of a world in which to put him.

Man was certainly created with the intention of his being immortal by grace. But being immortal, as you know, is not at all the same thing as being outside of time. Man was created to exist in an age that is "coextensive with eternity."

With the fall of man and the entrance of death and corruption into the world, the passage of time takes on characteristics that it was never intended to have, so I think that it would be a mistake to say that what Adam and Eve experienced as "temporal" is exactly like what we experience as temporal. We really don't know what that existence was exactly like, but we will, we pray, find out in the age to come. Whatever it is, it will not be outside time and eternity in the way that God is.

I include the final note from St. John on the angels, because I think we would both agree that if man was created outside of time, then certainly the angels were as well. St. John makes clear that because angels are immortal by grace, and not by grace, then without that grace, they would come to a natural end (just as all living things did after the grace of immortality was lost at the time of the fall.) I would therefore have a hard time considering that any created being that is immortal by grace, and not by some property of self-existence, could be outside time.





"Concerning Aeon or Age" (St. John of Damascus):

He created the ages Who Himself was before the ages, Whom the divine David thus addresses, "From age to age Thou art". The divine apostle also says, "Through Whom He created the ages."

It must then be understood that the word age has various meanings, for it denotes many things. The life of each man is called an age. Again, a period of a thousand years is called an age. Again, the whole course of the present life is called an age: also the future life, the immortal life after the resurrection, is spoken of as an age.

Again, the word age is used to denote, not time nor yet a part of time as measured by the movement and course of the sun, that is to say, composed of days and nights, but the sort of temporal motion and interval that is co-extensive with eternity. For age is to things eternal just what time is to things temporal.

Before the world was formed, when there was as yet no sun dividing day from night, there was not an age such as could be measured, but there was the sort of temporal motion and interval that is co-extensive with eternity. And in this sense there is but one age, and God is spoken of as [proaionios] for the age or aeon itself is His creation.

For God, Who alone is without beginning, is Himself the Creator of all things, whether age or any other existing thing. And when I say God, it is evident that I mean the Father and His Only begotten Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ, and His all-holy Spirit, our one God.

But we speak also of ages of ages, inasmuch as the seven ages of the present world include many ages in the sense of lives of men, and the one age embraces all the ages, and the present and the future are spoken of as age of age.

Further, everlasting life and everlasting punishment prove that the age or aeon to come is unending. For time will not be counted by days and nights even after the resurrection, but there will rather be one day with no evening, wherein the Sun of Justice will shine brightly on the just, but for the sinful there will be night profound and limitless.

In what way then will the period of one thousand years be counted which, according to Origen, is required for the complete restoration? Of all the ages, therefore, the sole creator is God Who hath also created the universe and Who was before the ages.

And from St. John of Damascus "Concerning Angels":

[An angel] is immortal, not by nature but by grace. For all that has had beginning comes also to its natural end. But God alone is eternal, or rather, He is above the Eternal: for He, the Creator of times, is not under the dominion of time, but above time.

[kosta50]

It wasn't very smart of Eve to take the fruit now was it?

You said she was not imperfect. People lacking wisdom and knowledge are not perfect, HD. That's what this was all about.

Your rednition of Genesis 3:2-3 is likewise imperfect. Eeve did know that she may not eat or touch it the forbidden fruit:

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Have you never made a mistake HD? Have you ever been deceived by your own desires? Or ws that God deceiving you through some evil spirit as you must no doubt believe?

No wonder you think the New Testament is "lovey-dovey." Too much love for you to handle.

[annalex]

Faith is a gift (Eph 2:8,9). Not all men have faith (2 Thess 3:2). Therefore God does not give His give to everyone

There is no "therefore". God gives faith to all who ask for it, but not all ask and not all keep what they receive. Need scripture for that? Just ask.