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

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

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It makes for much more interesting memoirs. 8~)

As Ruth Gordon said to Bud Cort in "Harold and Maude" --

"L-I-V-E, Live! Otherwise, you got nothing to talk about in the locker room!"

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"I will cry unto God most high; unto God that performeth all things for me." -- Psalm 57:2

[kosta50]

In reality, we are reacting a nano-second behind God's will for every speck of time in existence

Nonsense. We can choose or reject God, the consequences notwithstanding:

"And ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations" [1 Sam 10-19]

otherwise

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." {Hosea 4:6]

would make no sense. If there is no free will, then God is behind our rejction of Him.

That is not what one gets from

"And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them" [1 Sam 8:7]

or

"For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king [1 Sam 15:23]

or

"And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel"[1 Sam 15:26]

and

"And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them" [2 Kings 17:15]

and

"The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?" [Jeremiah 8:9]

or

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." [John 12:48]

or

" call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." [Deut 30:19]

or

"And the people said unto Joshua, Nay; but we will serve the LORD.

And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.

Now therefore put away, said he, the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the LORD God of Israel. [Joshua, 24:21-23]

etc., etc., etc. etc...

[kosta50]

Christians will broadly say they make a choice. Yet if you question them on their specific salvation they will say it is God's grace that saved them

That's because you believe that grace is shoved down our throat, that love compells. God offers His love, compassion and forgiveness to all mankind. Man's arrogance and pride refuses Him.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

St. Paul referred to the Lord's Supper as sharing the Loaf

Amen. Emphasis on "sharing." I like what James Jordan says about the communal aspects of the Lord's Supper, as opposed to an exercise of private devotion between an individual and God. ...

Worship is covenant renewal, and the communion meal is always the climax of God's renewing covenant with His community. This way of putting it takes the focus off of what is "extra" about communion, and puts the focus on God's renewing of the covenant in the whole service. It also takes the focus off of any notion of an individual's getting some kind of "fix" from communion, and puts the emphasis on the community."

[AlbionGirl]

Reading St. Paul I definitely get that communal sense, and joyfully so! The joy of Paul is just contagious!

[jo kus]

And who does the "infusing"? The mother church and her sacraments, according to the church of Rome, kept locked with the "keys to the kingdom" to be distributed according to her will and desires.

With all due respect, you don't know how we look at the sacraments - you are merely repeating some parody of what some polemic Protestants believe that the sacraments mean to us. The Sacraments are visible signs of God's graces. They themselves are meaningless without Christ. Thus, God chooses to work through visible signs, not only today, but throughout the entire history of salvation. God is experienced through such signs, not by abstract thought and discourse.

Christ chooses to work through His Body, the Church. The graces come from God, not the Church.

Regards

[jo kus]

That was one thing Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" got right -- every lash to His body is meant for us and He endured every one of them for us. And the result of His suffering is our justification before God. He paid the ransom for our souls. Christ declares us innocent by means of His death and resurrection. We have been redeemed.

We will probably talk past each other on this subject until we understand that we mean different things when refering to "redemption" and "salvation". This confusion in terms causes some problems in our understanding of each other, and thus, Catholics are often accused of "salvation by works" or "adding to the works of Christ".

What the Protestant point of view fails to take into consideration is that redemption and salvation mean two different things to Catholics. Christ died for the sin of the world - ALL sin, for ALL men. This is objective redemption is freely given as a gift to all men. God desires that all men utilize this saving redemptive gift. However, we realize that salvation to eternal heaven does NOT necessarily follow as a result of Christ's objective work. Thus, as Scriptures amply note, man's individual salvation to eternity depends on his response to God's great gifts - throughout his life. This is not salvation by works, but faith working in love. One of the biggest themes in the New Testament, aside from Jesus Christ, is the fact that man will ultimately be judged based on how he used God's gifts in this world and whether he responded to God's work of redemption and the Spirit's promptings throughout his life - ALL men.

Protestants, I believe, consider salvation and redemption as the same thing - and thus, often restrict Christ's work to a select few. Thus, Christ only died for SOME men and God's gift is limited to those men alone. One can only wonder at whether such a God is just, to condemn whole swathes of humanity to eternal hell for something beyond their ability to control or effect. According to such theology, Christ's Paschal Mystery is never meant for all of humanity, unlike Adam's sin, which DID effect all of humanity. Apparently, Christ's work did not undo all of Adam's work... Thus, by making redemption = salvation, Protestants, I believe, will continue to talk past Catholics and continue to misunderstand the application of such terms as infused righteousness, the sacramental economy, merit, and the reason why the Scriptures note that man undergoes justification process throughout his life.

ALL MEN have been redeemed! Christ undid the knot of slavery due to Adam's disobedience. For ALL! What Catholics and Orthodox realize is that now, God asks men the question: "Do you love me greater than these?"

Regards

[jo kus]

I've been thinking about this. Our Lord Jesus completely gave up His will throughout His entire life even onto a horrible death and submitted to God's will. Why would we, who are to emmulate Christ, insist on our "free will"? Shouldn't we submit to the Father just as our Lord Jesus did? Didn't He set us an example to go and do likewise?

Harley, what makes Christ's obedience of submission significant IS that He HAD free will, the choice between obedience and disobedience! That's what made Christ's sacrifice so meritorious in His Father's eyes - it was done willingly!

Regards

[jo kus]

The only reason He could obey the Father was that He was God. Adam was a man and couldn't do it. We can't do so. It requires a devine nature.

That is incorrect and a pointless lesson to give us. Christ became man and subjected Himself to temptations for the purpose of showing us that He, Jesus Christ, was like us in ALL ways except choosing to sin. Christ was ALSO man. This teaches us that Adam COULD have resisted temptation, and that we, regenerated in our originally planned state, can ALSO resist temptation. Surely, as a practicing Christian, you must realize that you can resist temptation now that you are a new creation?

Regards

[HarleyD]

I don't wish to minimize communion as mere symbolism but I don't agree with the Belgic Confession. Much of these kinds of statements were written by people who had a "high" view of communion coming out of the Catholic Church. There is nothing in scripture that supports the statement:

"Yet we do not go wrong when we say that what is eaten is Christ's own natural body and what is drunk is his own blood-- but the manner in which we eat it is not by the mouth but by the Spirit, through faith."

unless we go back to the Catholic teaching of where Christ said "I am the bread of life...". Then you open yourself up for all sorts of issues.

Paul stated that the purpose of Lord's supper was to proclaim the Lord's death until He comes (1 Cor 11:26). There is nothing more mystical then that. We don't eat Christ's flesh or drink his blood, either real or otherwise. There is no need to and is not the purpose of communion according to Paul. We proclaim that Christ was here, that He died for our sin, and our testimony to the world is He will return for us. Whereas the Passover pointed to the redemption of Israel from the bondage of Egypt, communion points to our redeption from sin.

Paul also stated that we are not to take communion in an unworthy manner (1 Cor 11:29) so it is far more than a proclamation-it is a sacrament of God instituted for His beloved Son. It mocks God and our testimony fails when we make light of communion. To profane the Son even in a symbolic ritual is an affront to God the Father and will incure His wrath, even as believers.

[Gamecock]

Are you denying Christ was fully human, fully God?

[HarleyD]

Harley, what makes Christ's obedience of submission significant IS that He HAD free will, the choice between obedience and disobedience!

I believe kosta mentioned something to this effect as well but I haven't had time to respond. Of course Christ had "free will" to be obedient. But there are many problems in comparing Christ to us.

1) Our Lord Jesus followed a plan set before the foundations of the world, a plan of His device. We don't have the luxury of knowing what God's plan is.

2) Christ was not subject to the weakness of the flesh. He was righteous from the beginning fully capable of doing what is right. We are fallen creatures incapable of doing what is right on our own.

3) Christ, being God, was empowered and led by the Holy Spirit throughout His life on earth. We cannot make this claim.

4) Adam and his descendant are creatures of God. Christ is God.

To compare ourselves to Christ is a poor comparison, even in regards to “free will”. Christ had “free will” but that “free will” was used to follow the ONE perfect plan of God the Father set before the foundation of the world. Christ, being God, would not deviate from this plan. Was there ever a choice in the matter or was it all predestined? He remained perfectly submissive to God the Father’s will. Any deviation from God’s will would have been sin and God (Christ) could not sin. He was predestined to carry out God the Father’s will perfectly.

Likewise even as flawed creatures God has a plan for each of us. ("I know the plans that I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11). We can go to Nineveh the easy way or the hard way, but we will still ("freely") go to Nineveh.

[AlbionGirl]

Thanks, qua, that was excellent! I'm interested in knowing how the Belgic Confession differs from the Westminster. What I'm really asking is one subsumed in the other, or are they in fact separate?

I do believe that when we partake of the Sacrament we are partaking of His Body and Blood, because it's the voice of Christ that tells us so. Obviously, the method by which this occurs is not something I can be certain of, and I don't think anyone else can either, because it's a mystery.

The thing that really kept me Catholic was the Eucharist, because I believed that only Catholics could dispense or confect the Lord in this manner. But then I began to think about how infrequently Catholicism requires participation in Communion. I believe it's as with confession, once a year. You can't get more infrequent than that without totally eviscerating the Dogma, so that, in and of itself, undercuts the teaching that it is the summit of the Christian life of worship, and the teaching that it is of the highest efficacy insofar as our salvation is concerned. I'm also thinking that I might be operating under condition, or a kind of schizophrenia insofar as this subject is concerned, so my thinking remains perplexed.

Harley, the point you make about Calvin and the other reformers coming out of Catholicism is well taken, but that didn't stop them from discarding confession, marriage, extreme unction and confirmation as Sacraments, altogether and post haste, so while I think your argument has merit, I'm not convinced it's that strong.

It's almost impossible to know, with any degree of serious detail how the first Christians viewed, participated in and distributed the Bread, but it's of immense interest to me because I think it immensely important.

[annalex]

by making redemption = salvation, Protestants, I believe, will continue to talk past Catholics and continue to misunderstand the application of such terms as infused righteousness, the sacramental economy, merit, and the reason why the Scriptures note that man undergoes justification process throughout his life.

.. And will continue in ignorance of the Gospel which they profess being the sole object of their religion.

[blue-duncan]

"Scriptures note that man undergoes justification process throughout his life."

Justification is a forensic term whereby a person is declared righteous, not a lifelong process. It is a judgment rendered once and for all because the sentence has been rendered and the punishment has been paid.

[jo kus]

Are you denying Christ was fully human, fully God?

Of course not. But to say Christ was not subject to temptations is to nullify that fact that Christ was fully man, as well.

Regards

[annalex]

Justification is a forensic term ...

It is a theological hypothesis not supported by the scripture.