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

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

[Kolokotronis]

"You are remembering correctly. St. John the Baptist was rendered sinless while in his mother's womb in the presence of yet-unborn Christ. I believe that to be both Catholic and Orthodox view, however Jo Kus told us it was allowed but not dogmatic view in the Catohlic Church, and Kolokotronis and Kosta can correct me regarding the Orthodox dictrine."

I must confess I have never heard of this with +John the Forerunner, but a quick google on the subject indicates that at least among the Russians this is a pious belief, a theologoumenon. There is the interesting idea that although Christ was the only truly sinless person, His sinlessness was completely of His own doing whereas both Panagia and +John the Forerunner were preserved by God from sin because of the special role they each played in the Incarnation. I'm not sure I buy into the latter part of the theory at all, especially with +John the Forerunner.

[Forest Keeper]

I didn't say God ordained what He foreknew. "Seeing" doesn't mean that God brought it to completion. That would make God necessarily the author of evil - in the case when He sees a sinful act.

I just thought I remembered your saying that it was acceptable for Catholics to either believe that a.) God did not base His decision for election on His foreknowledge of who would pick Him, or b.) God did base the decision on foreknowledge. On just the subject of election, I thought you said your personal view was in line with B. Sorry if I had that wrong.

Also, note I said God does not "foreknow" what HE does, strictly speaking, because there is no "before" for God. He certainly sees what happens within Creation.

Then are we just playing semantics with what "foreknow" means? If I was wrong above, then how do you see God's election decisions?

[jo kus]

I think those who believe that John the Baptist was born sinless rely on the following verses:

"For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb." Luke 1:15

"And it came to pass that when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit;" Luke 1:41

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Luke 1:28

It certainly is a legitimate and pious belief. But I don't think the Catholic Church has dogmatically considered the question. One could use similar arguments used with Mary and apply them to John, so it certainly is feasible that the Forerunner was at least born sinless.

Regards

[jo kus]

I just thought I remembered your saying that it was acceptable for Catholics to either believe that a.) God did not base His decision for election on His foreknowledge of who would pick Him, or b.) God did base the decision on foreknowledge. On just the subject of election, I thought you said your personal view was in line with B. Sorry if I had that wrong.

You are correct on all of the above. But I never (at least I don't think I did) say that what God foresees, God ordains. He certainly can foresee man's decision to sin - but does that mean He ordained it? Beware, this is a trick question...

Then are we just playing semantics with what "foreknow" means? If I was wrong above, then how do you see God's election decisions?

Technically, God doesn't foresee His OWN decisions, because they are made all at once in His eternity outside of time, that one moment of the present. "Foreknowledge" refers only to God's "sight" of man within time. Frankly, I don't see how God does NOT see man's action in time - since He sees everything as one moment. There is not a "day 1 - God decides what He will do - day 2 - God does it". His decisions outside of time are "still" occuring. To us, they are already made. To Him, they "are" happening "now". Thus, how exactly can God NOT see man's response to Him?

But you don't really want to get into that again, do you?

Regards

[kosta50]

Job was blameless from the POV of any other human. No one could observe Job from afar, examine his actions in the (then) present, and find fault with him

Out of curiosity, I looked up the Hebrew version of Job 1:1 and the word used there is tam which is translated as "perfect, complete" etc. Modern lexicons define "perfect" as being without blemish, complete...

You seem to distinguish between "perfect" and "faultless," a word which is a synonym of perfect. What you are really questioning is whether perfect also means sinless, knowing that Job confessed that he is not without sin. Yet Septuagint (LXX), the Greek-language OT predating Christ says that Job was "true, blameless, righteous, and godly, abstaining from everything evil."

Clearly, the last part of that sentences makes a very strong suggestion that he was perfect even when it came to committing sin prior to the events that were to follow.

Various versions of the Bible say different things, and are therefore "understood" differently. In all this, the focus becomes on the verse, word by word, and not the spiritual message behind the story -- which is: never blame God for your misfortunes.

Therefore, Paul must mean that no one is perfect in the eyes of God

Well, that much we agree on. However, not only does the OT mention the righteous, but so does our Lord Jesus Christ, so whence came those, if according to +Paul, none is righteous?

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "Jesus is clear that He is making a comparison, but He is not talking about a repeat of the same act. Being born of the flesh and being born of the Spirit are different things altogether. Do you deny this?"

That is exactly why I disagree with Harley's Bible's interpretation of "born again". How can a person be born of the Spirit AGAIN? One is born "from above".

All I could find regarding Harley's Bible's interpretation was in his 4811:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope…” 1 Pet 1:3

“for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.” 1 Pet 1:23

This seems pretty clear to me. It is not a matter of being born of the Spirit twice. It is a matter of being born of the flesh once, and then being born again, but this time of the Spirit. How do you see it?

[HarleyD]

jokus - "How can a person be born of the Spirit AGAIN?"..."Born again" implies that I was born once in the same manner already. (Post 4813)

Joh 3:4-10 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?"

Two births; flesh and spirit. "Born" is the word gennaō meaning: of men who fathered children, to be born; regenerate. There is no "error" in the translation. Man must be spiriturally regenerated. He is DEAD to trespasses. The Spirit goes where it wills and we don't have a clue as to how it acts-regenerating one heart and passing over another. That is what Christ teaches.

With all due respects to our friend jokus, please note how close jokus comment is to Nicodemus'. It should be remembered that our Lord Jesus chastised Nicodemus for not understanding this basic principle.

[HarleyD]

Thanks for posting this. It is an interesting read. I would recommend comparing the Orthodox view to the Westminster Confessions.

[Forest Keeper]

Bottom line, the Protoevangelium of James might be where we get the idea of Panagia's life-long sinlessness. It is equally likely that we got it from, say, the writings of +Ignatius of Antioch or any of a number of other sources. Again, however, for us Orthodox it simply isn't an issue.

That it isn't an issue for the Orthodox is interesting to me. I contrast that with Catholicism, in which the Immaculate Conception "appears" to be a fairly big (important) issue. I'm not sure I understand why that is. I wonder if it has something to do with the concept of original sin. That's the only thing I could think of that could touch this topic, where there are different views among Catholics and the Orthodox.

[Gamecock]

***It should be remembered that our Lord Jesus chastised Nicodemus for not understanding this basic principle.***

Interestingly, I never understood that passage until I became a Calvinist.

Nor did I understand the bones in Ezekiel.

Or how God could violate Jonah's free will by forcing him to go to Nineveh.

For that matter how God smacked down Paul and that effected all of his writings, and how those writings are consistent with the totality of Scripture, which all of a sudden made a lot more sense.

It now all makes sense.

Interestingly, I see a glimmer of that understanding beginning in our free will Baptist neighbor.

[kosta50]

I contrast that with Catholicism, in which the Immaculate Conception "appears" to be a fairly big (important) issue. I'm not sure I understand why that is

Well, it is, FK, because it is a Roman Catholic dogma (as of 1854).

I'm not sure I understand why that is. I wonder if it has something to do with the concept of original sin

The western (Augustinian) concept of the "original sin," which you share with our Catholic brothers and sisters, is at the root for such a dogma, and one of the several theological disagreements the Orthodox share with the Church of the West, although -- paradoxically -- both sides of the Church believe Blessed Theotokos to be have been immaculate all her life, and venerate her as the Saint above all Saints.

[kosta50]

Thank you HD for the link to the Westminster Confession. I will read it carefully. Do understand, however, that the Orthodox belief I linked is a short version.

[HarleyD]

Interestingly, I never understood that passage until I became a Calvinist.

Funny you should mention that. I could never understand:

"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:8

...that is, until now. ;O)

[Gamecock]

Amen brother!

People think they can somehow will themselves to be "born again," when the delivery process is of and from the Holy Spirit. Nicodemus had it half right, it took Christ to explain the second part of that particular truth.

[HarleyD]

You seem to distinguish between "perfect" and "faultless," a word which is a synonym of perfect. What you are really questioning is whether perfect also means sinless, knowing that Job confessed that he is not without sin. Yet Septuagint (LXX), the Greek-language OT predating Christ says that Job was "true, blameless, righteous, and godly, abstaining from everything evil." Clearly, the last part of that sentences makes a very strong suggestion that he was perfect even when it came to committing sin prior to the events that were to follow.

I hate to butt into this conversation but I would suggest that Job, who God called His "servant" was indeed blameless before God. That doesn't mean Job did not sin as Job himself admitted. It means that God viewed Job as blameless.

This is used repeatedly in the book of Kings where it often starts out as "King So-n-so" did what was good/bad in the sight of the Lord" and then proceeds with their life story. God passed judgment before He tells their story. You will note that with some evil kings they did some good things. With some good kings they did some bad things. That never changed God's view.

This is precisely how God views each of us. We are either blameless (righteous) before God or we're not. That doesn't mean those who are "blameless" before God are perfect. It simply means that God does not view our sin because our righteousness comes from God and is determined by God. Yes, even our righteousness is a gift from God.

You just pointed out an excellent principle of righteousness.

[jo kus]

It is not a matter of being born of the Spirit twice. It is a matter of being born of the flesh once, and then being born again, but this time of the Spirit. How do you see it?

the same

Regards

[jo kus]

With all due respects to our friend jokus, please note how close jokus comment is to Nicodemus'. It should be remembered that our Lord Jesus chastised Nicodemus for not understanding this basic principle.

Like I said, it was a minor quibble. The proper interpretation is "born from above". I am fully aware that there is a difference between our natural flesh birth and our spiritual birth. Note, it is, then, not a "rebirth", strictly speaking. We aren't born again in the same manner. Thus, I don't think my comments come anywhere near Nicodemus - actually, I am pointing out the opposite.

Regards

[jo kus]

That it isn't an issue for the Orthodox is interesting to me. I contrast that with Catholicism, in which the Immaculate Conception "appears" to be a fairly big (important) issue. I'm not sure I understand why that is. I wonder if it has something to do with the concept of original sin. That's the only thing I could think of that could touch this topic, where there are different views among Catholics and the Orthodox.

That Mary was sinless predates St. Augustine. This was not something HE invented or thought up. More or less, if you want to understand the Catholic point of view regarding Mary, you need to understand the link between Mary and the New Eve concept. We've covered this ground already. But if Eve was created sinless, and was involved in Adam's fall, so the same with Mary in our Redemption. It is a natural outgrowth of the Second Adam found in Scriptures and is found quite early in Christian writings.

Regards

[blue-duncan]

Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

[Forest Keeper]

But I never (at least I don't think I did) say that what God foresees, God ordains. He certainly can foresee man's decision to sin - but does that mean He ordained it? Beware, this is a trick question...

I don't remember your ever having used "foresee" and "ordain" together like that either. I admit I don't see the trick, but you were more than decent to warn me. :)

Let's look at the crucifixion, and all the sin that surrounded it. Jesus prayed for the cup to be taken away, except that the Father's will be done (in case of any "conflict"). Since the crucifixion happened, I conclude that it was God's will that it happen. That would also entail that it was not an accident. Therefore, I would say that God "ordained" that the crucifixion happen. Such could not happen without sin because Jesus was in every way literally blameless. Sin was required to fulfill God's ordination. Therefore, God must have "ordained" that those sins all occurred.

Now, does this mean that God was the "author" of those sins? I would say "No". If God were the author of the sin that led to His death, then that would be tantamount to suicide, an impossibility because it is sin. So, I see a distinction between God "ordaining" sin and God being the "author" of sin. God can choose to withdraw any or all amount of unmerited grace at any time because He has no duty to leave us with grace. If that happens, the person is going to sin. This is not the fault of God, although God did "ordain" the sin.

There is not a "day 1 - God decides what He will do - day 2 - God does it". His decisions outside of time are "still" occurring. To us, they are already made. To Him, they "are" happening "now". Thus, how exactly can God NOT see man's response to Him?

I think I agree with what you are saying. If I'm following you, because God is outside of time He does not have foreknowledge of His own actions, but He does have full and complete "regular" knowledge of every action ever taken. Because man operates within time, God does have foreknowledge of every action every man will ever take. If that's right, I have no problem looking at it this way. Do you make this distinction for the sake of being correct (which is fine), or does it affect the theology of the topics we have been discussing?