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

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

[jo kus]

I wrote Does it say "written" word?

you reply That is what it means.

Why would an angel burn the lips of Isaiah, rather than his writing hand? I am beginning to wonder about some of the responses you have given me recently...

[HarleyD]

Pharisaitical Jews believed in resurrection -- the World to Come referred to earth, not heaven. Until resurrection, which is indeterminate, and post-messiah, those who die are "asleep" in their graves, and their souls are in Shoel/Hades. No hell. No heaven.

I'd like to know how you can know so much about the Pharisaitical Jews when historians don't. Apparently not much is known about the Pharisees. About the only thing they do know is from the works of Josephus which states the Pharisees believe:
The only point on which all our sources agree is their belief in an afterlife in contrast to the Sadducean denial. Josephus appears to contrast their position with Essene dualism: for the Pharisees unrighteous souls are punished while the righteous pass into "other bodies" (BJ 2.163). Presumably some sort of heavenly bodies is intended rather than a belief in reincarnation, since the latter appears to be foreign to all known Jewish beliefs. This then would presuppose some specific eschatological event. Pharisees

You are reading into this because you don't know what Judaism teaches. There is no reference to any heaven or hell in your verses.

As Josephus points out, the Pharisees believed in the body passing into some other type of heavenly body-not reincarnation but some form of celestrial body. What would you suppose the Pharisees' belief in the resurrection of the dead would mean and how would you contrast this with the Sadducee's belief?

After all, no one else seems to know apart from Josephus writings. However, you seem to have additional information.

[Forest Keeper]

Thanks for the ping to your response to Harley on Mary's conversation with the angel. Thanks also for the story on the illegals. I can't imagine something like that happening right next door to me. I like the idea of walls. :) I'd be in favor of big, long walls, but with wide gates. It will be very interesting to hear what the President has to say on Monday night.

NO ONE makes you sit in the car and keep the money OR go back to the store. Your will has made the choice, in either direction, and is not compelled. In either case, your intellect is not some disembodied thing separate from your will. You ARE experiencing it!

But many times I do feel compelled by my conscience to do something good, even though my "real" self doesn't want to. I see this as God's way of moving me. I can definitely tell there is a difference between my conscience now and what it was earlier. I think this is part of sanctification.

FK: "I believe the Bible is God's word because God tells us so in His word."

The bible is God's Word because the Word of God is the Bible... The Word of God is the Bible because the Bible is the Word of God. Can't you see the circular argument here?

That's not what I said, you are misquoting me! Very dangerous. :) I said that God says that the scripture is His word. This opens up God to the same level of scrutiny as any other claimant would have to face. If someone is able to impeach God's credibility, then the statement can be shown to be false. Do you also find the following to be a circular argument, and thus of no value? :

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

---------------

First of all, why COULDN'T one of the letters [of the Bible] be fake? Paul considered the possibility in several of his letters!

Because if it was, then the Bible would not be God's word. We would have no reason to trust any of it. I don't think that could have been God's intention, so I believe He took whatever steps were necessary to make sure that didn't happen. God tells us to be vigilant and always be on the lookout for false teaching. How could He allow just that in His own Holy Book?

And the Bible is perfect? Not to the atheist or those who find contradictions in it.

God says the Bible will be as nonsense to people like atheists. Believers will certainly find "apparent" contradictions, but this does not take away from the perfection of the Bible. When a true believer discovers one of these, what will he do? Yes, he will read, study, and ask questions until he finds a resolution. This is sanctification. Looks perfect to me. :)

By the way, you forgot 7 books!

Then why don't any of you all quote from them, (or do you)? You quote from (my) Bible, and you quote from the Fathers, but I can't remember any times when these other books have been quoted from.

FK: "I believe that only God determines His revelation."

Yes - but Protestants believe God gives "me" all this revelation completely and perfectly. If it disagrees with someone else, then THEY are wrong!

I don't see it that way. God gives His revelation, and sometimes man misinterprets, including Protestants. I argue whatever is my understanding at the time. If someone can show me a better understanding based on scripture I might very well accept it. That has already happened on this thread.

FK: "I suppose it is a philosophical question of whether it is better to have only one Church, which might be corrupted utterly (in which case no one is saved), or which might be entirely correct ..."

Explain exactly how the Church established by Christ, the pillar and foundation of truth, became "utterly corrupted"?

I was using the two extremes and meant "or anything in between". I obviously don't think the RCC is totally corrupted or I wouldn't think you are Christian. I just see that since the Catholic faith has SO MUCH power being delegated to men by God, combined with the fullest view of free will, that there is a huge opportunity for "men" to steer the faith into error. I think that was the professed reason for the Reformation.

As more and more scriptures start to lose their meanings in favor of seemingly contradictory Traditions, then I think there is legitimate cause for concern. Whether something is declared to be dogma, doctrine, or discipline, in order for it to work, all relevant scripture, if any, must be interpreted as consistent with the idea in order to follow the rule that scripture does not contradict tradition. I have found that this leaves very little for the seeker to read in the Bible to know what is going on. I do not believe that God was the most cryptic author ("inspirer") in the history of literature.

[Re: Gen. 1 and 2] The order of creation is different. Read it more carefully. I realize the focus - but chronologically and scientifically, the two are faulty. It should be quite obvious that people realized this and determined that the two stories were NOT relating scientific knowledge?

Yes, except for the word "faulty", I agree. The article I posted said basically that the account in Gen. 1 is the chronological and more scientific account. Gen. 2 focused on relational matters, and so we should not take that chronology as being literal.

[HarleyD]

Double nonsense. God told Adam OTHERWISE!

It doesn't negate God's commands. Scripture is a progression. Adam had one commandment, Israel had ten. God told Adam about the plants. God gave the command to Noah to eat the animals. BTW-God tells Peter that all animals are clean in Acts. You want to throw that out as well?

As someone already suggested on this thread: try reading (and understanding) Scripture rather than prooftexting it.

I'm not the one ignoring verses I don't like.

[1000 silverlings]

I must go, I hope you get to 6666, lol.

[Full Court]

Do you enjoy being fearful to little animals FC?

How little?

Does it please you when birds fly away in fear of you?

Pretty much, especially knowing how disease ridden their feces are.

Do you eat everything you kill?

I don't kill anything except spiders.

Are bugs your meat too?

I'be swallowed a bug by accident, it flew in my mouth. But that was years ago.

Is this what Christ teaches?

1 Corinthians 8:8  But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

Why do you have such a problem with what the Bible teaches?

[Full Court]

The difference is that her potential sin was wiped off before she could commit any.

1 John 1:8  ¶If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

1 John 1:10  If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

The only person without sin was Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:21
 For even hereunto were ye called:
because Christ also suffered for us,
leaving us an example,
that ye should follow his steps: 22  Who did no sin,
neither was guile found in his mouth:

23  Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again;
when he suffered, he threatened not;
but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

24  Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree,
that we, being dead to sins,
should live unto righteousness:
by whose stripes ye were healed.

25  For ye were as sheep going astray;
but are now returned unto
the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

[D-fendr]

I'm noticing a definite anti-hierarchical response on a couple of levels - the Church and creation.

I'm wondering if "The Great Chain of Being" is part of Eastern thought or only western.

[Full Court]

Speaks to the mind of The Church, not the individual.

Baloney.

[D-fendr]

I'm wondering what your view is of the hierarchy that Jesus established. Why pick 12, why not all the disciples? Why not everyone a priest?

[Full Court]

Why not everyone a priest?

Hebrews 7:12  For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

1 Peter 2:3  If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

4  ¶To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

5  Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

[jo kus]

In this case, how can God ENSURE that any one man's intellect is taught correctly without overriding the free will of the teachers? If a teacher has correct knowledge, what guarantee is there that he will faithfully pass along that knowledge based on his free will? There can be no guarantee without God's intervention. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. :)

How can God ensure that His teachings are given correctly? Is that what you are asking me? Are you saying that God cannot enfluence the contents of a teaching?

I meant that your view is that the Bible is inerrant NOT because God says so, but because your hierarchy took a vote and declared it so. Likewise, the writings of any particular Father are declared infallible by a similar vote.

Do you know what a circular argument is? That is exactly what you continue to do when you say "the Bible is the Word of God - because the Word of God is the Bible." Break this vicious circle and prove to me that the Bible is the Word of God WITHOUT the Church. The Bible CANNOT prove itself.

I'm not accusing anyone of lying, but I do think that when it came to the Bible, there was a different standard. Men are capable of error, and so I believe that the Bible was effectively taken out of the hands of man to ensure its inerrancy.

Are you trying to eat my cake?! What makes you think that? What evidence do you have to make such a presumption?

Your case would be stronger if any of the true writings of the Apostles was rejected as uninspired. To my knowledge, that did not happen. Writings of Fathers were rejected many times.

As were writings of men who claimed to be Apostles, such as the Gospel of Thomas. The reason why it was rejected was its content, not its author. As such, the Church used the same criteria for judging ALL the books of the NT. Did they meet the criteria established by the Apostles' teaching - oral and written - without contradiction? The fact of the matter is that you really don't have much to stand on to reject such things that are well established as Apostolically taught, such as infant baptism. What holds you back is theological issues, not any search for the truth. We accept many things as true that are not in Scriptures...

I wrote :FK, this is something that ONLY the Spirit can enable us to comprehend. It is not something that can be explained and understood with the man of the flesh: ...

You wrote : Since this is a Catholic belief, I thought you were saying that all others are "men of the flesh", thus, unregenerate.

What I am saying is that our human nature's brain cannot understand transubstantiation. As Christ said, it takes the Spirit coming to man and giving supernatural faith from the Father to believe in the Eucharist.

But since God's system of justice is not like man's, His unilateral promises are always binding on Him. This is not in the sense that God "owes" us, it is in the sense that God owes His own nature, since it is axiomatic that God is not a liar. He can't say "just kidding" because it isn't true to His nature.

Which is why Catholics say we can merit. God binds Himself based on His revelation that He is Just. By following His commands, through His graces, God has bound Himself to save us.

That would be true only if your definition of justice was the only one. God's justice is different.

There you go eating that cake again... Than we shouldn't call God "just" if it doesn't even meet human standards of justice. When we say God's ways our not our ways, it doesn't mean that God is WORSE! It means that God EXCEEDS our expectations!

I wrote I ask you to consider what would be the point of Jesus telling the elect to persevere if they are infallibly saved? Or the non-elect to persevere if they cannot but sin?

You responded: He tells them to persevere because that is part of the salvation model revealed in scripture, and that is part of the human experience. (We all experience choosing to persevere.) He also tells them that none of His sheep will be lost.

You are not answering the question... How does God expect man to persevere if man cannot do ANYTHING, even when empowered by God?

The principle that it must/will happen for the elect is the same for both of us, right?

God foresees our perseverance. We don't. That is why we don't know we are of the elect. It makes no sense that God will ask the "elect" to persevere - to be on guard. This is a senseless command if man cannot do anything. Our differences on this stems from you taking God's point of view and trying to foist it upon man's knowledge of his eternal destiny. We don't know - thus, we are told to persevere. IF we persevere, salvation is ours, and we were the elect all along. IF we DO NOT persevere, we were one of those who said "Lord, Lord" - and Jesus will respond "I never knew you". Think on that...

The Bible is the literal word of God and should be interpreted as it was intended to be.

The Bible is NOT the "literal" word of God! Does the Bible say that anywhere? God works through mediators - throughout history. He inspired men to write the Scriptures.

It seems logical to me that whatever verse says that women should not speak in church is of this kind.

This is an example of how God speaks through a human writer. If woman speak in church, then they go against the "literal" word of God! Is God's Word unchanging or not? This is the problem with Islam, for heaven's sake! The Pope has written about this very subject - and why Islam cannot reform itself - because it believes that the Koran is the literal word of God - while he points out that Christians do NOT see the Bible as the "literal" word of God - but subject to interpretation by different times and societies - the People of God in time.

Regards

[jo kus]

I wrote :that the Bible encapsulates everything that the Apostles spoke.

You responded :Who ever said that it did?

That's the presumption you make when you write the following: What God wanted later generations to know is what is written down.

NOWHERE does the Bible say anything like "God had everything written down that He wanted man to know ONLY in the Scriptures". Why would God DEMAND that everything be written, when He has the Spirit of Truth working within the Church. Is the Church the pillar and foundation of the Truth - or is it NOT?

Regards

[jo kus]

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

Ooohh, I guess you told me... Unfortunately, secular history proves you are wrong. The Bishop of Rome was in existence long before Constantine was even conceived in his mother's womb - to the chagrin of Protestant apologists who would love to separate the Church from Christ.

Regards - and I mean it. I can still wish you well even if I don't agree with you... That is what the Scriptures tell us, correct?

[jo kus]

WHAT??? :) Are you telling me that every aborted baby is damned to hell? LOL! That is precisely what St. Augustine wrestled with! And those darned Calvinists... No, the Catholic Church does not accept St. Augustine's position on this matter. Various theologians have attempted to reconcile the necessity of Baptism to be united with God in heaven. Most suggest that babies in such situations will not be punished, but will not enjoy the Beatific Vision in heaven. (thus the Limbo thing that is not official teaching). In the end, we rely on God's Mercy - that God will not send to hell a baby (or a man!) who was unable to respond to the call. God is not bound by the Sacraments - and St. Augustine argued precisely this vs. the Donatists. I find it strange that he didn't see this as a way out of damning infants to hell.

Regards

[annalex]

What does [Romans 5] have to do with Isaiah?

In Romans 5 there is a discourse about the sin of Adam, which is also often cited as a prooftext that absolutely, scouts' honor, everyone has sinned. Bottom line, Paul did not write for prooftexts, and we don't read the scripture that way. You look at the overall message. Otherwise, the inspired authors would have written like modern lawyers with clauses and subclauses.

do we have a "potential" to sin and if we have a potential to sin, why does God allow us to sin? Did God take away Mary's free will when He took away her potential to sin?

That potential to sin is called Orginal Sin. No, remittance of original sin, ordinarily achieved through baptism, does not remove the free will. Proof is Adam and Eve before the Fall, who acted on their free will, e.g. by naming the animals, and of course, committing the sin.

[annalex]

they were not 'priests', they were elders or Pastors

Insist you. A priest is one offering a sacrament. Annointing is a sacrament. So, they were priests at least in that context. Certainly not pastors, the word for that is "poimenos" (1 Peter 5:4). I have no clue why Jerome translated 1 Peter 5:1 as "Seniores". Good question. In Apocalypse that seems justified by context.

That chapter (11) has to do with the Lord's supper and those abusing it

My point exactly.

Priest is in a different race

In a way, he is, as priesthood is an indelible mark.

That passage is not speaking of any special class of clergy, but all Christians.

I always said that NAS is a Protestant Fifth Column in the bosom of the Church. It would certainly not be the only Catholic Bible with atrocious commentaries (and horrible translations). The text of Hebrews 5 does not agree with the commentary, nor with you. Note that the subject is identified not merely as "priest" but as "high priest", so it cannot refer to the priesthood of all believers. He is also said to offer gifts and sacrifices, again something reserved to ordained priests.

Come to think of it, is the commentary even to Hebrews? it looks like it can better apply to 1 Peter, where he speaks about the chosen race.

[annalex]

God told Adam about the plants. God gave the command to Noah to eat the animals.

Kosta's point is that pre-Fall, and therefore in the coming Kingdom of Heaven, there is no eating of animals. Of course it is legal for us to eat them.

Incidentally, I am amazed at the exuberance that our Protestant friends display upon learning about different kinds of souls. To my knowledge, the distinctions are recognized by the Reformed as well.

[annalex]

Your quote-o-rama does not speak to the question of Mary, dear.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply, but my question still is: Why did Jesus choose the Apostles; why single out anyone at all if there is to be no hierarchy?