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

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

[annalex]

See my 5479 and tell me what you think.

[annalex]

The verse says "Do not go beyond what is written.". It is a principle, and supports Sola Scriptura over oral teachings. Principles survive into the future.

I agree that the Gospel should be read extensively and it provides insights beyond the immediate circumstantial context, just like you say. This is why I think it is incorrect to read, for example, "scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16 as referring only to the Old Testament, as the larger principle in it describes all scripture, even yet unwritten as of St. Paul's writing. Likewise, it is incorrect not to see Mary as mother of us all even though Christ only askes her to adopt St. John, or to see the miracle at Cana as Mary interceding just one particular time.

This being said, 1 Corinthians 4

6 But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written.

-- does not speak to the scripture in its relation to the tradition, but to the scripture in its relation to the human authority of St. Paul, or Apollo, or anyone else. This is entirely consistent with other instances where temporal power, and the tradition of men, is discounted in the Gospel. But the passage also explains that men -- St. Paul, or Apollo, -- are to be listened to inasmuch as they become "the dispensers of the mysteries of God" (verse 1). This is consistent with what the Church teaches on Tradition as having divine, not human origin.

The other passages you gave, the preamble to the Book of Luke and 2 Timothy 14, explain why the scripture is very important, but they do not support the central element of Sola Scriptura, that of the Scripture's supposed sufficiency outside of the entire Holy Tradition.

[Agrarian]

I believe that I answered this same question as best I could in #5327. If there is something I can clarify or expound on, let me know.

[blue-duncan]

I like your #5480 better.

[annalex]

I can't imagine how that passage would have been so differently worded, if the true intent was to convey siblings.

I am not sure which passage you are referring to, but generally, yes, it is impossible to tell from any single passage on the New Testament is a direct brother or a cousin, or half-brother is spoken of. We've discussed it at great length by now.

Thanks, I hadn't thought of [Matthew 1:24-25]. Very decent of you to point out.

I treated this verse in a rather lengthy post to you: 2317. The point of it is, simply, that while some translations have "until" and others have "till", the original Greek does not speak at all to what happened after the Nativity.

[annalex]

In the Romish schema grace is opposed to nature and works against nature

Nonsense.

[1000 silverlings]

Jeremiah 31:31

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

31:32

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

31:33

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Ezekiel 11:19

And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

[1000 silverlings]

men the power to overrule God's "everlasting" Covenant. Yet, men in 47 AD got together and did precisely that...

No they didn't. As God says, the Jews broke the covenant, rendering it null and void. He then established a new one, by Jesus's blood.

[jo kus]

Jeremiah 31:31-33

So Jeremiah gives everyone blanket authority to claim that the Spirit is within them? I don't see Jeremiah saying that someday, man could declare God's previously Laws null and void.

Ezekiel doesn't mention anything about Sola Scriptura. Or doing away with the Written Word of God.

All of your verses, especially 2 Cor 3, could be argued that we don't NEED WRITTEN Scriptures! Are you sure you want to go that far?

I still don't see anything about a small group of men given the power to do away with a Law in the Torah as clear as day - that ALL males are to be circumcised to enter into the People of God. All you have given me is that God would establish a New People who would have the Law written in their hearts. This doesn't do away with or abrogate circumcision, this means that the New People will be given the power to OBEY this Law previously given!

Regards

[1000 silverlings]

Circumcision of the flesh has been replaced with circumcision of the heart. No man "did away" with it. God did away with it. It is the mark of the Old Covenant, no longer in effect.

[1000 silverlings]

Heb 8:6

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 8:7

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Heb 8:8

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Heb 8:9

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Heb 8:10

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Heb 8:13

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Heb 9:1

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

Heb 10:16

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

Heb 10:29

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Heb 12:24

And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Heb 13:20

Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

[jo kus]

I said "men the power to overrule God's "everlasting" Covenant. Yet, men in 47 AD got together and did precisely that...

You responded No they didn't. As God says, the Jews broke the covenant, rendering it null and void. He then established a new one, by Jesus's blood.

We know that today. But what about the Jew of 50 AD. What evidence from SCRIPTURE ALONE gives the Apostles the authority to break part of the everlasting covenant of the Old Testament? Christians argue, correctly, that they were given this power to FULFILL the Covenant through Christ's work. But this is hidden within the OT. It is subject to interpretation that the Christians undertook as a result of their cognitive dissonance that occured after the Resurrection - trying to put two apparent truths together - that Scripture is from God AND Jesus, a condemned crinimal - was the Messiah, even the Son of God...

The only thing that gave power to the Apostles to overturn the requirement of Circumcision was their ORAL claim that Jesus rose from the dead, confirming His teachings as from God. Otherwise, with Sola Scriptura, they got nothing... They have NO authority to overturn anything from Scriptures. It is only the power given by Christ, the power to bind and loosen, that has given them the ability to loosen the requirements of circumcision upon the faithful, NOT the Bible.

Since the first Apostles did not operate under the guise of Sola Scriptura, what makes you think we should?

Regards

[1000 silverlings]

Again, the Apostles did not overrule or break the covenant, nor did they do away with any Word of God. Jesus told them the plain truth of it. For instance, "Mt 26:28, "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

You have some idea that a group of men sat around and "made up" Christianity and that is just not true.

[blue-duncan]

In the Old Testament the sacrificial system was temporary and localized after the Children of Israel divided the land of Canaan. Although the Levites had cities within the boundaries of the tribes they could not offer sacrifices, only teach, much like the synagogue system that developed during the exile. It was only at the tabernacle and the temple where the Ark resided that sacrifices could be offered. Three times a year Israel was required to appear for the sacrifices but the rest of the year they were taught by the Levites or mowed their lawns.

The sacrifices were offered daily at the tabernacle and temple but only the Priests who were on duty, like John the Baptist's father or someone visiting actually participated in the event. The system was temporary and fulfilled with the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus, the effects of His sacrifice being eternal but the actual sacrifice was a point in time event, not perpetual.

There is no longer any need to circumcise male babies since believers, male and female, are circumcised in the heart. The Levitical function now, is like the Levitical function back at the time of Joshua, predominantly teaching by Pastors. Not much changed.

[annalex]

It is true that the sacrifice of levitical priests stopped after the second destruction of the Temple, although I would not look to the rabbies for the reason

The sacrifice of the Mass continues in perpetuity because it is "the partaking of the body of the Lord?", modeled after the Jewish altar but filled with the different meaning:

16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread. 18 Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar?

(1 Corinthians 10)

[HarleyD]

Hebrews 9, 10, 11 is the NT. How does that show 'the same faith' established by Jesus Christ?

I don't mean to offend but you seem to have an unusual disconnect from the Old and New Testament. They are all considered God inspired written by God through men inspired by His Spirit. The gosple is one. I believe this has ALWAYS been the position of the Church as well as the church. Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestants.

That being said, when the scriptures states,

Heb 11:24-26 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.

The writer is saying that Moses gave up everything for Christ. Quite frankly I can't see how this could be clearer.

As far as your discussions with what Jews believe NOW is irrelevant. The simple fact is that those Jews who believe in the Messiah are now Christians. There are not some quasi-Christian/Jew thing contrary to popular "dual" theology nonsense.

[Forest Keeper]

What the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches do with St. Augustine is that not all of his writing is necessarily concensus patrum, which is the only "security measure" that guards against private, individualistic or relativistic corruptions.

That's what I meant. I don't think you kicked Augustine to the curb, just that you threw out some of his writings. This is also what I mean when I talk of the truth being determined by popular vote.

But, speaking of discarding and distortions, it is really the Protestants who throw out all the other Saints as "bogus" and embraced only one, St. Augustine, and generally only Apostle Paul, and predominately the Old Testament.

I don't disagree with them because they are Saints, it's just the theology. I'm not sure how it is that I only supposedly embrace Paul and the OT. :) To me, all scripture is Holy and true. Sure, some books are more difficult, like James, but I don't throw them out. It's still scripture, which means I have to deal with it. That's fine with me.

Tertullian is a perfect example of someone who used to be orthodox and then later on in life left the Church through heresy ...

I didn't know he left the Church. I know I've heard him quoted before, so his earlier works are still OK?

You also read Scripture that is not the Scripture of the Church but of man called Luther, and men called Calvinists. Your Scripture is not identical to ours, nor does it say the same thing and is not the same canon.

I agree that our interpretations are vastly different, but I'm not sure how we read different scripture. I can understand that a Catholic or Orthodox might not read my NIV, but from what I understand, some on your side do read the KJV. So do some on my side. So what's different? Do you mean the extra books in the "Catholic Bible"? Were those ever Canonized?

[HarleyD]

Finally, 2 Tim. 14 makes reference to what the recipients of the letter "have learned and believed," because they know from whom" they learned it. No reference to scripture here. Instead, it is a reference to Holy Tradition and, perhaps, apostolic succession.

Odd. Paul doesn't mention "apostolic succession". If you wish to make a case that Timothy was to follow what he had learned as in the case of 2 Tim 3:14-15 then you must follow it with Paul's complete thought of 2 Tim 3:16, "All scripture is inspired by...". Paul is talking about handling the word of truth (scripture) correctly. Less there be any mistake about this, Paul states almost the identical thought in 2 Tim 2:15:

2Ti 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

Oops. No mention of following traditions here.

It is historical fact that the Church forbid Bibles during the Reformation and documented this fact at the Council of Trent. Now if Paul is giving us instructions to "accurately handle the word of truth" why would the Church forbid the reading.

Less you answer me that the Church was afraid people wouldn't handle the word of truth accurately, who precisely is to say what is accurate. A bunch of old men reaching some sort of agreement. That has never been a successful formula.

[HarleyD]

What evidence from SCRIPTURE ALONE gives the Apostles the authority to break part of the everlasting covenant of the Old Testament?

I'm not an expert on Covenent theology but if I'm not mistaken man has NO rights in disolving a convenantal promise of God. It was God who said,

"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, Jer 31:31

God changed the convenant and He revealed this change in many ways (e.g. the transfiguration of Christ with Elijah (prophet) and Moses (Law), and the vision of Peter before Cornileus to name two). It was strictly by Sola Scriptura that Peter and the rest could look back at the promises of God of changing this covenant. He opened their minds to understanding the scriptures, just like my tag line states.

[1000 silverlings]

The simple fact is that those Jews who believe in the Messiah are now Christians. There are not some quasi-Christian/Jew thing contrary to popular "dual" theology nonsense.

Very insightful and absolutely correct. I too do not understand the disconnect that some here have between the old and the new testament, nor do I understand where some statements come from, just blithely stated as facts.-- There is one bible, with one theology. The Plan of Salvation is the one theme that makes it a seamless book, a seamless theology and a seamless religion.