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

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

[Forest Keeper]

Christ takes on our sins and pay for them, so we are actually judged "innocent" by the substitution of His virtue for our lack of it, while we remain always the creature whom God created. This is one of the areas where I think Reformed theology is most profound. There is nothing in man which is righteous or God-pleasing.

Thanks, Dr. E. I'm just glad at how lucky we got in that all of this is thoroughly backed up by scripture. Considering that all of this was made up out of whole cloth, I mean, what are the odds? :)

[Forest Keeper]

A miracle that qualifies for sainthood is a miracle occurring after the death of the candidate saint, as a result of a prayer to him. The candidate saint then intercedes from Heaven and the Holy Ghost performs the miracle. The miracle has to be objectively verifiable, typically, a healing.

Thanks for the info. I'm a little intrigued by the "objective verification" part. I think we could agree that it happens all the time that people are "inexplicably" healed by God, i.e. with no special medicine, etc. Some of these people prayed to a Saint or Saint candidate for help, and some did not. Therefore, how is it objectively determined that the healing was a direct result of the candidate's intercession, when it could just as easily have been a coincidence, i.e. that God had already decided to do a healing with or without the intercession?

That leads me to another question. If it is proper to pray to a candidate Saint for intercession (and some candidates get turned down), then is it also proper to ask for intercession from any who have passed away, such as deceased relatives, etc.? If "Yes", then that would seem to be quite a roll of the dice, depending on where the deceased person actually is according to your beliefs. Do people feel "safe" in praying to John Paul II because everyone assumes he is already in heaven?

[fortheDeclaration]

As usual, you miss the key point.

The defense of tradition was based on its adherence to scripture.

To estimate the weight of this argument, we must remember that these fathers still stood comparatively very near the apostolic age, and that the succession of bishops in the oldest churches could be demonstrated by the living memory of two or three generations. Irenaeus in fact, had been acquainted in his youth with Polycarp, a disciple of St. John. But for this very reason we must guard against overrating this testimony, and employing it in behalf of traditions of later origin, not grounded in the scriptures.

The Roman Catholic Church of today is from the 4th century.

No one denies you can find germs (an apt term) of it's development in the writings of the various church 'fathers'.

Where you cannot find it is the Scriptures.

Regarding the history of the Papacy,

There were five principal Sees in the early church. They were Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, and Constantinople. Each was presided over by a Patriarch or a Pope. The title 'pope' was originally not specific to the bishop of Rome, but was applicable to all bishops or pastors, and sometimes was even used for teachers. Each of these five Sees had jurisdiction within their geographic area. The Church government was conducted through regional councils or synods. These councils would write canons that were the law within that jurisdiction. Often one regional council would receive and adopt canons of other regional councils. More detail on early canon law is found here. Additionally, there were ecumenical councils that were attended by bishops from the entire Church.

The bishop of Rome, because he was seated in the imperial city, was accorded a primacy of honor in councils. This conferred on him things like a more honorable seat and a higher place in the roster of speakers, but did not impute to him any authority, for the authority was in the Council rather than in any individual. Later, when the empire divided into the Eastern and Western halves, the See of Constantinople, known as the New Rome, was granted an equal dignity with Old Rome, though ranking second after it.

Stephen I, bishop of Rome, was the first on record to attempt to exert authority over other churches on the basis of succession from Peter. He attempted by letters to overrule the decision of a council of African bishops concerning the baptism of heretics. In response, the Africans held a larger council of 87 bishops which upheld the previous council and rejected Stephen's decrees. This was the Seventh Council of Carthage in 258.

It was in the latter half of the eighth century that there appeared a document purported to be a legal title granted by the emperor Constantine, in the fourth century, to Sylvester bishop of Rome. It granted to the Roman bishop, among other things, "…supremacy... over the four chief seats Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem, as also over all the churches of God in the whole world." Before this document the papacy could not effectively assert itself, because the Church had only the Scriptures and the documents of the various councils—none of which established or supported any such office as the papacy. But here emerged a forgery, that was received everywhere as genuine, that exalted the Roman See not only above the other four principal Sees, but over the entire Church.

The Donation of Constantine provided the bishop of Rome with what appeared to be a legal claim to everything he had sought, but to which he previously had no right. He was now 'rightfully' acknowledged to be the sole and supreme spiritual ruler over the entire Church, as well as the temporal ruler over a large swath of Italy that became known as the Papal States. The Donatio was proven to be a forgery by Lorenzo Valla in 1440 in his Declamatio. But, by that time the structure of the papacy was set in place, and its adherents were well under its control, and largely either unable or unwilling to forsake it.

Not long after the Donation, there appeared in the late eighth or in the ninth century another forgery, or rather, collection of forgeries, which was widely accepted as genuine, and which also served to greatly strengthen the power and prestige of the papacy. The False Decretals were a collection of forged letters or 'decretals' purporting to have been written by earlier bishops of Rome. These decretals made vast and far-reaching claims of power and authority for the bishop of Rome that were made to appear as though they had long been established in antiquity.

Phillip Schaff writes of these Decretals, ¶ Fictitious documents, canons, and decretals were nothing new; but the Pseudo-Isidorian collection is the most colossal and effective fraud known in the history of ecclesiastical literature. History of the Christian Church, by Phillip Schaff, Volume IV, Chapter IV, § 60

It was by means of these forged documents, along with others of similar character, that the papacy was provided with a pretended apostolic origin, lineage from Peter, and headship and authority over Christ's Church as well as over the kings of the earth.

http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/OP/OP.htm

As for learning history, the only history that a Roman Catholic apologist knows is the one that the RCC had made up.

'regards'

[fortheDeclaration]

The three quotes I gave you show that the priests (or if you prefer, "elders") had abilities not given laity; that the church was thought of as distinct place not suitable for eating anything but the Eucharist, even if arcghitecturally or legally it was someone's private property; and that the roles during the Church service were distinct and separated laity from the president and the deacons, -- all in direct contradiction to the Protestant mythology.

None of your quotes state what you are trying to make them say.

James say that the elders of the church should pray over one who is ill.

Since elders (pastors) are to be in constant prayer, what is so unusual about that? (Acts.6:4)

As for having house churches, that is what the scriptures say existed ( a point you seem hard to deal with)

There are house churches today that are able to handle both the Lord's supper and adult Baptism (in a pool or stream) without any great difficulty.

"Elder" and "priest", or "president" are incidentally all translations of "presbyteros"; one uses a similar word with a Germanic root, the other the same Greek root, and the third is the corresponding Latin.

Well, 'priest' has a far different modern connotation then does elder or even presbyterian.

As for 'priests' I read in 1Pe.2:5 that every believer is a priest, able to approach God directly, without any need for the intercession of a clergy class.

The only mythology that is going on is the myth of the RCC, that chooses its manmade traditions over the revealed truth of God (Mk.7:7)

[fortheDeclaration]

Mt 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Every Christian has an angel in Heaven

First, the passage does not say that.

It is talking about children, not Christians.

Second, what does that have to do with praying to angels or saints?

[fortheDeclaration]

If I'm understanding your reply, you're saying when Jesus said those in heaven rejoice at our repentance he was speaking of angels? That the angels are aware of us then? Is that a correct stating of your interpretation?

Ofcourse,the Elect angels are coming and going on earth and have alot to do on Earth, performing God's will.

We saw angels helping Christ after his temptation (Matt.4:11).

We also saw that when John fell down to worship an angel he was rebuked by the angel for doing so, since the angel was a fellow servant (Rev.22:8-9)

[Forest Keeper]

Well, Kolokotronis already clarified that the Apostles were not there [in the icon], which actually shows that the OT righteous are not given the same grace as Christ's Apostles.

Yes, he did, that was my mistake. I really don't know the level of significance that these icons have for you all, but this one icon is enough to prove that the Apostles had more grace than the OT righteous? I suppose "grace" could be a relative term here, but when I think of Moses, John, and Paul, I think of them all as those who wrote inerrant scripture, they all performed miracles, and all preached God's word, so they all must have been pretty loaded with grace. :)

Another point concerns John the Baptist as one of the OT righteous. I don't know why that is, (unless it is because he is Elijah), but since it helps me now, I'll go with it! :) Anyway, Jesus said, in effect, that (outside of Himself) John the Baptist was the finest man who ever lived. That would put him ahead of the Apostles and appear to indicate more grace.

We cannot simply say that God bestowed His grace on the Jews and the OT righteous and that they would for sure recognize Christ if they had seen Him, as Elijah and Moses recognized Him on Mount Tabor; by then, they both had "inside information." :)

Yeah, I have read the postings on whether the OT righteous would have recognized Jesus as Messiah. (John the Baptist certainly did.) I suppose that my take would be that no one ever recognizes Christ unless God reveals Christ to him. So, it wouldn't matter how pious or sinful anyone was, or what their doctrines were, when they lived, or anything else, those whom God chooses will recognize Christ. I have to believe that the OT righteous would have been in that group.

[D-fendr]

I'm not sure if you're deducing the saints in heaven are less than angels at some point and equal to them at another. We had a discussion earlier about how we are greater than the angels which I thought was quite good.

I also disagree that Luke 15 limits the joy in heaven to angels only in either mention.

And, I wouldn't say the Bible is silent on what the saints know. True, it doesn't give us a clear picture of their sense perception, but that would be expected - it is beyond our comprehension to be those outside space and time. I think we would agree that existence in heaven is supernatural.

The Bible does tell us we are united, one family, not separated by death supernaturally linked by the Eucharist, a "cloud of witnesses"... We also have Jesus praying for us to have eternal life - to be as one with Him and the Father as He and the Father are one.

This union, the Body of Christ, saints on earth and in heaven, one family united, is the foundation of the Communion of Saints - from Jesus's teaching, in the Apostles Creed, and continuing on in the church today.

I know you will have other interpretations than I for any verse mentioned in order to not have the same meaning for Communion of Saints. So we will disagree on dueling verses. However, I think in addition to any specific scripture verse there is an accumulation, an overwhelming message of union in the Body of Christ throughout eternity that supports my belief scripturally on this question.

Thanks very much for your reply.

[fortheDeclaration]

I'm not sure if you're deducing the saints in heaven are less than angels at some point and equal to them at another.

The saints in heaven have not yet received their final resurrection body which will be like Christ's body.

As for marriage, which the verse was dealing with (Matt.22), the saints will be like the elect angels in that they do not marry.

The final resurrection body will be superior to that of an angel since it will like the body of Christ Himself.

We had a discussion earlier about how we are greater than the angels which I thought was quite good. I also disagree that Luke 15 limits the joy in heaven to angels only in either mention.

Well, only angels are mentioned.

It could be that the saints are rejoicing as well, but nothing is said of them.

And, I wouldn't say the Bible is silent on what the saints know. True, it doesn't give us a clear picture of their sense perception, but that would be expected - it is beyond our comprehension to be those outside space and time. I think we would agree that existence in heaven is supernatural.

Amen.

The Bible does tell us we are united, one family, not separated by death supernaturally linked by the Eucharist, a "cloud of witnesses"... We also have Jesus praying for us to have eternal life - to be as one with Him and the Father as He and the Father are one.

The church is united spiritually but there is the church triumphant (in heaven) and the church militant (still on earth).

Only after the Rapture, will both be united together both physically and spiritually.

This union, the Body of Christ, saints on earth and in heaven, one family united, is the foundation of the Communion of Saints - from Jesus's teaching, in the Apostles Creed, and continuing on in the church today.

Yes, the church (those who received Christ as their personal saviour) is one body, but some of it is in heaven and some of it is still on earth.

I know you will have other interpretations than I for any verse mentioned in order to not have the same meaning for Communion of Saints. So we will disagree on dueling verses. However, I think in addition to any specific scripture verse there is an accumulation, an overwhelming message of union in the Body of Christ throughout eternity that supports my belief scripturally on this question.

I do not think any verses in scripture give the impression that the saints in heaven are concerned with the affairs of the world.

Nor, should the saints on earth be praying to them or for them.

Thanks very much for your reply.

Likewise.

[D-fendr]

One quick rejoinder and I think I'm pretty well done:

The church is united spiritually… Only after the Rapture, will both be united together both physically and spiritually.

United spiritually. Union/communion... Communion means sharing as in thoughts and feelings, as in fellowship.

We could speculate about commingling spiritual essences or some such, but I cannot immagine "united" and "union" not including sharing something. In Jesus's prayer to the Father He prays that we are united, One, as He and the Father are one - united spiritually I believe you would say - as He prays.

So, if you say united spiritually, I believe you have conceded the point. :)

Somehow I think your mileage will vary on that last sentence. In any case, I think I'm pretty much done on the issue, and I appreciate your posts and discussion. Maybe we could all rent "City of Angels" together?

[kosta50]

Soul is life, a "force" that animates. Without it, nothing "breathes" on its own. Yes, animals and plants "breathe."

You are confusing it with something esle. All living things have "life" in them. When they die, "life" leaves them, i.e. their "soul" separates; they stop breathing, they stop "living" and become dead. That goes for all living things. I know this is all Greek to you, and in fact it is Greek! :)

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "I do think that man is responsible for his sin, that the elect do persevere, and that obedience is expected of men."

If so, you disagree with the classic Reformers - congratulations! Naturally, I would be interested to hear your theories on how man is responsible if he cannot cooperate? And further, who is being called to persevere? Man or God? Finally, if obedience is expected, wouldn't we presume that man has the ability to obey?

Well, if I disagree with the classic Reformers, then all that means is that I still have much to learn! :)

To address your questions, man is responsible for his sin because he does the sinning. Man is born with a sinful nature that will inevitably lead him to sin, and will never allow him to do something pleasing to God. However, as we discussed, not every act committed by a "lost" person is technically a sin, in the way I am using the word "sin". Therefore, when a man does succumb to his born nature and sins, he is responsible. God has no duty or obligation to stop this "natural" occurrence. All of this is independent of whether man can cooperate or not. Man is still responsible.

It is the elect who are called to persevere, but God gets all the glory (and credit) for it happening. If the elect are mature enough in their sanctification, they will know to rely solely on God for this perseverance to occur. They will also rely on God's specific promises that it will occur. The elect do not persevere because they made free will decisions to do so, the elect persevere because God through the Spirit is so PERSISTANT that it will happen:

Phil. 1:6 : ... 6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

1 Cor. 1:8-9 : 8 He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.

1 Thess. 5:23-24 : 23 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it.

2 Thess. 3:3 : 3 But the Lord is faithful, and he will strengthen and protect you from the evil one.

2 Tim. 1:12 : 12 That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.

2 Tim. 4:18 : 18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Obedience is expected of the called. Sin is expected (predicted) for the lost. Among the elect, there is no expectation of man's independent ability to obey. There is an expectation, through regeneration, of God's grace upon His elect that will result in man's obedience.

[kosta50]

Marioogy is fascinating indeed -- even if just trying to understand the mindsets of the most devout early Church fathers who developed this inner tradition.

However, Jesus was conceived "supernaturally" and it is not unreasonable to say that He was born supernaturally. There was no "seed" uniting with Mary's ovum, but an ineffable God covering Himself with her flesh and fashioning a Child the way God the father fashioned Adam, except this time it was flesh and not clay.

The painlessness of her birth is probably tied to the Catholic belief that she was, through Immaculate Conception, a pre-Fall second Eve and therefore spared the "curse" of painful births through the ancestral sin.

[kosta50]

no one ever recognizes Christ unless God reveals Christ to him

Oh, people recognize Christ, but some choose to reject Him.

As for Mount Tabor, I always wondered how did Moses and Elijah get there if they were in Hades until Christ rescued them.

[HarleyD]

You did not notice a response, but there was at least one, from me, in 6160: When it states [in Rom 3:23] that all have sinned it includes Mary. No it doesn't. The adjacent verses make clear that "all" refers to the Godless who toil uinder the law of nature or the law of Moses (compare verses 11-18).

Sorry, I miss some of these posts. I'm extremely busy at the moment and, while I try to catch things directed at me, I'm not always successful.

I would disagree with your interpretation. Please note the entire context of the verses:

Rom 3:22-24 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

Paul is clearly talking about the people who have been justified included in the list of those who have sinned. Besides, isn't it the Catholics (among others) that tells me over and over that Christ died "for the whole world", that ANYONE may believe in Christ and turn and be saved. One has to presume under such theology they would mean Mary as well.

If you would like another verse then please consider the following:

Isa 53:5-6 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.

Under your interpretation this would not apply to Mary. But Isaiah clearly states that ALL of us like sheep have gone astray. Christ was pierced for OUR transgressions and by Him we are healed (to God's great glory and to show His great mercy to us). Note that Isaiah includes himself in this so he is obviously talking about everyone-including Mary. So it leave you with a problem.

[Forest Keeper]

Judaism holds that one is made acceptable to God by works. There is no reason to believe that the OT Patriarchs and Prophets believed otherwise.

Yeah, I'm not crystal clear on how this works. We know the Jews lived "under law". Yet we also know that Moses WROTE that righteousness was accorded to Abraham because of faith, not works. Moses also carried the law. So, I'm not so sure how these two ideas work together, other than to say that I think that all of the OT righteous did have faith.

They [Adam and Eve] didn't repent when God gave them a chance to repent in the Garden of Eden. Apparently, God did not find it necessary to re-visit their spiritual growth after they were kicked out of the Garden or else something would have been written about it, don't you think?

Thank God ours is a God of second chances! :) While God did kick them to the curb, He did not completely turn His back on them after the fall. In Gen. 3:21, God made coverings for them out of animal skins (the first sacrifice?). In addition, Eve shows signs of repentance and faith:

Gen. 4:1 : Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man."

That shows some faith to me. Adam also showed some positive signs:

Gen. 4:25-26 : 25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD.

That sounds like a bona fide praise of God by Adam. Plus, Adam and Eve were both still alive during this time that "men began to call on the name of the LORD". Since Adam was the oldest, it would make sense to me that he would have had something to do with that, from a human POV. So while it may not be a slam dunk, I tend to think of Adam and Eve as having been saved.

A Jew who is an atheist can still be considered rigtheous in Judaism, so faith is not required. To the best of my knowledge, in the biblical times there were no atheists.

Well OK, but we are only talking about the Judaism of Biblical times. I'm not sure how close today's Jewish faith is to that of the OT righteous. I would guess not very close. No Jew of the OT could consider a man to be righteous if he did not believe in God.

[Forest Keeper]

A baby which is not baptized and dies is not incorporated into Christ by the Holy Spirit, separated from God.

WHAT??? :) Are you telling me that every aborted baby is damned to hell?

[D-fendr]

For us Romanists, I believe the parallel is spiritus (breath) from whence spirit:

1) The vital principle or animating force within living beings.
2) The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death.
3) Spirit, The Holy Spirit.
…

Which makes me also ponder that literally it would be the Father, Son and Holy Breath.

[annalex]

"All creatures" being the men and women God has created

This is your interpretation of Mark 16:15. St. Francis had his, and his is the plain reading of it. I guess, "all creatures" does not mean "all creatures" to the Sola Scriptura superstitionists.

Do you preach the Gospel to flies?

Not consciously. Preaching the Gospel is living it, and as we live among the animals of all kinds we preach to all of them in the language they understand. This is the central theme you as a Calvinist don't understand: The Word is a body of Christ, not a book, so preaching the Word is behavior, not speech. This is why St. Francis spirituality drives you nuts. Luther, and especially Calvin never understood the Gospel, and the Gospel continues puzzling you, and Christian behavior contuinues puzzling you.

For the record, preaching to animals is not a Catholic dogma. One can be a good obedient Catholic and never pet a dog. The reason I underscore it is because your puzzlement over it highlights the impoverished state of Reformed spirituality.

***

Prayer of St. Francis

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy;

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

[annalex]

Preaching to animals bump