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

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

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Harley began this thread, but he's on vacation this week. Perhaps he can come onto the thread and do the honors.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"Middle class bourgeois" bump.

[Religion Moderator]

That will be fine. It is neither urgent nor required, just a suggestion.

[AlbionGirl]

Read my thoughts, Dr. E.

[Forest Keeper]

... The misuse of that free will lead to the Evil One and his rule over the Earth with his parasitical existence in creation as well as to the Fall. For this reason we can say that mankind, indeed all of creation, has a perfect nature which has become distorted.

I suppose when I think of "perfection" in a person, I think of someone impervious to distortion. Jesus was perfect. That's why I do not think it was even possible for Him to sin. Of course God "can" do whatever He wants, but He tells us clearly that He would never choose to sin, else He would not be God. He would instead be the thing He hates.

Now as for the Evil One being to blame for the Fall, well, yes he is, but both Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to eat the fruit, but they did it anyway. They were the authors of their own fall. The fact that the Evil One played a part doesn't get them, or us, a pass.

This sounds pretty similar to the argument I've been making to Kosta about the difference between God's ordinance and who is the author of sin. I have been saying that while God ordains all things for His purposes, we are still the authors of our own sin. We do not get a pass just because God ordained it. (I'm not saying you would agree with me in substance here, I'm just comparing the types of argument.)

[annalex]

We know that there are gifts of the Holy Spirit outside of the sacramental structure of the Church, as well as the gift of consecrated life. Mentioning of the broad variety of gifts in 1 Corinthians does not negate passages where the laying of hands is given a sacramental meaning by the inspired author.

[annalex]

Christ does not indicate any particular color, but He insists on the "nuptual" character of the garment proper for the feast of the Eucharist in the parable of the guests at the wedding.

[Kolokotronis]

"This sounds pretty similar to the argument I've been making to Kosta about the difference between God's ordinance and who is the author of sin. I have been saying that while God ordains all things for His purposes, we are still the authors of our own sin. We do not get a pass just because God ordained it. (I'm not saying you would agree with me in substance here, I'm just comparing the types of argument.)"

Ah, but FK, Kosta and I don;t believe for a minute that God ordained the Fall. Having foreknowledge of the Sin of Adam and ordering creation as he did in light of that foreknowledge is quite different from ordaining that the Sin occur. I'm with Kosta here. If God ordained the Sin of Adam through which sin and death entered creation, then God and God alone is responsible for what we perceive to be a mess.

[annalex]

Here is an index of posts that I found significant (it is also maintained on my profile page)

• The Holy Ghost is given to the Church first: 216 and on, 661, 790, 1395;
• The Trail of Blood myth: 427;
• Free will in the Scripture: 501, 956, 972, 1835, 1995, 3687, 3689 (fathers);
• Free will and Sovereign God: 956, 972, 1066, 1643, 1968, 3052, 3687;
• Augustine and predestination: 1001, 1549;
• Sin, grace, hope, charity: 562, 1474;
• Orthodox and Catholics close: 574, 580, 586, 605, 802 and on, 1796; 2155, 2476;
• Orthodox and Catholics not that close: 3752
• East and West's theological traditions: 1724;
• Necessity of sacraments: 947, 948;
• Necessity of good works: 1058, 2200, 2218, 2302;
• Trusting the Church: 970, 1225, 1796;
• The Christian Canon: 2024, 2060, 2104, 3973;
• Tradition and Scripture: 2428, 2741;
• Christian mysticism: 1102 and on;
• Error of Luther: 1557, 1834, 1988, 2033, 2107;
• Error of Calvin: 2679; 4320; 4370;
• Defects of King James Version: 1194; 1760;
• Is mankind cursed: 1827, 1901;
• Mary sinless and ever virgin; Immaculate conception: 2246, 2310, 2317, 2451, 2459, 2612, 2707, 2801, 2802, 2982;
• Intercessory prayer: 1837, 1904;
• Purgatory and the Last Things: 1837, 1904, 1989;
• Confession and Holy Orders: 4516;

[blue-duncan]

Look, let me be the first to sum up.

I'm right, and everyone else had better start studying 'cause finals are coming sooner than you think. That about covers it so I'm going home to play with my granddaughter.

[Kolokotronis]

Sorry I missed this before my last post. I concur that its time to shut this one down.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

LOL. Never let it be said you are not organized.

[Forest Keeper]

Good post, BD.

Where does it say [in John 20] that the disciples, what ever the number, had the authority to pass this gift concerning remittance of sin on to any other?

I have also asked this question on this thread, many moons ago. IIRC, the closest I got to an answer was along the lines of the counter question - "Why would God leave His Church in the lurch?" :) It was as if God's only option in caring for His people was to anoint "kings". We all know how well that worked out the first time it was tried. :)

The James passage deals with confessing to one another but there is no mention of absolution. ... But the mention of prayer removes the necessity of an earthly mediator. They are petitioning God.

BINGO! :) Whether or not confessing is a good thing is not in controversy, it is in whom the authority rests to forgive the sins. I agree with you that God can handle all of it quite nicely by Himself. :)

[annalex]

See my posts responding to that, though.

[Forest Keeper]

You recognize that God allows sin but not free will? I would say that sin is a product of the free will. In your case, "sin happens."

I think I have been fairly consistent in saying that I don't think God is the author of sin, so that means that God does not independently "make" us sin. (There is still the lingering issue with the Pharaoh, and I admit I don't have that one all the way ironed out yet.) In any event, since I have also said that I don't think we are "robots", I do agree that we can choose to sin. However, I do not think we have the free will to do good, especially as nonbelievers. At our beginning, it is not in our nature to do good, so we cannot. Even after salvation, any good that we do is actually God doing the good through us.

You are concerned with free will diminishing God's sovereignty. But, the Apostolic Church has always taught that God remains sovereign, because he weaves our good or evil decisions, all of which are foreknown to Him, into His plan.

Yes, that is a huge concern of mine. :) Let me try it this way. I think you have shown an appreciation on this thread for how much greater God is than us. I think you would easily agree that there is no comparison between the authority and wisdom that God has over us adults, and the authority and wisdom that we have over, say, our two-year-old children. Now let's say that your two-year-old wanted to go out and play on the roof. Would you weave those wishes into your plan and hoist a ladder? If you did, would you really be sovereign over your child?

In your theology, there is no freedom to sin, and therefore there is no freedom to come to God. We are simply puppets on God's strings. There is no fault to be found in the slave, but in the master.

I hope I was able to clarify above. The term "free will" really can mean different things in this arena of ideas. I can say that before salvation we are "free" to choose sin, but then I would add that since it is our nature, our only course is to sin. You might then say that is no freedom at all. I think we would be much closer about free will to sin after the point that I would call "salvation". At that point I would say we have a new nature and sin is not absolutely inevitable in a definitional sense, although we all still do it anyway.

[Forest Keeper]

[On 1 Timothy 2:5] Once again, your prooftexting is out of context. Surely Our Lady did not gave herself in redemption, nor in testimony. I know that. She mediates to Christ Who mediates to God the Father. And not she alone, I have attachment to many saints; I spoke of my attachment to St. Francis for example on this thread. I ask them to pray for me and I pray for others too. This is how the Communion of Saints operates.

Yes, my prooftexting is completely out of context with extra-scriptural tradition. So when the verse says "one mediator of God and men" it doesn't mean there is only one mediator between God and men at all, it means that there is only one FINAL mediator to God. The Catholic view appears to be that this verse means that in between men and God there are thousands of mediators who all report to Christ, who then passes along the messages to God the Father. I have to admit, not in a million years would I have come to that conclusion by just reading the words in only the context of other scripture.

[kosta50]

(Note: Agrarian has withdrawn from this discussion to devote himself more to the Great Lent and the coming Holy Week. Out of respect, I am leaving him out. If you know otherwise, please foward this reply to him.)

Since you have a more scientific mind than I do, I'd be interested in what you thought of the following page...http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/CheckableBiblicalAccuracy.html

FK, in all honesty this would be a better topic for a private post allowing some detail that will not distract from the main course of our discussions, namely salvation, sin, the Scripture and God's omnioptence/omniscience.

But to render you the courtesy of an honest reply without going into polemics, these areguments are rather weak in my opinion.

[annalex]

It is a completely natural way to read 1 Timothy 2 in the context of a strictly hierarchical, yet unconcerned with social class church described in the letter. If St. Paul meant his comment to be directed against all human mediation he would not be instructing about the role of women, neophytes, deacons, and bishops, where the latter group has responsibilities for the former. You insert into that passage the preference for a flat ecclesiastical structure of late Reformation, while its intent is to explain that both kings and plain folk have one God the Father and one Christ, and therefore cannot claim social privilege. I do not need anything not contained in the letter to see that.

[P-Marlowe]

Here is an index of posts ....

Man, you've got too much time on your hands.

[kosta50]

I do not think we have the free will to do good, especially as nonbelievers.

That means that besides Christians there are no compassionate, mericful and charitable people in the world. That is a an unsupportable argument.

At our beginning, it is not in our nature to do good, so we cannot

That is Blessed Augustine's and Calvin's conjecture. I am sorry, but they are wrong. It is clear that we have some life left in us because only Lucifer's angles are fallen for good and are not redeeamble; for us there is hope; for fallen angels there is none. That tells me that the Church teaching is correct: we are wounded but not dead.

Even after salvation, any good that we do is actually God doing the good through us

Any good in man is God's doing, even in nonbelievers. The difference is that the nonbelievers may take credit for their good; a true Christian will give all credit to God. At best, we are God's vessels, through which His words are heard, and His love is felt.