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

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

[HarleyD]

Very interesting post A-G. Thank you so much. I'll have to look this up when I get a moment.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

And whose sorrow exceeds that of the Dolorous Virgin, watching her Son die on a cross, knowing it was God's Will be done and probably not knowing why?

I think Mary knew why Christ was being crucified. Don't you? That doesn't make it any less tragic and painful and heart-breaking, but she surely knew her Son to be God and understood that He was dying in her place and ours.

[George W. Bush]

I am not saying that the saint had ulterior motives!

Okay. But it kinda sounded like that to me.

God gave Mary a singular grace, making her the greatest of all creation, one who will be called blessed for all generations.

Mary was no more instrumental to the eventual revelation of Christ in the flesh than were many others in scripture. Adam and Eve, Abraham, David, and innumerable others. The vital choices and sacrifices essential to God's plan made by so many others are all set to nought by elevating Mary so far above all others. That all generations shall call her blessed is indisputed. But you are close to elevating her to the status of Christ Himself.

To me, scripture has only one object, one star: Jesus Christ. There are no co-stars, no co-redemptrixes. All of God's glory is focused upon Christ in the person of Jesus. Everyone else is a bit-player in comparison.

Mary did face a number of trials. I do not believe that she had supernatural knowledge. Certainly, choosing to bear child while not married yet subjected her to possible stoning. And whose sorrow exceeds that of the Dolorous Virgin, watching her Son die on a cross, knowing it was God's Will be done and probably not knowing why? No, Mary certainly suffered - a sword pierced her heart, too, at Calvary.

Mary suffered like any human being. But scripture does not attest that she suffered anything comparable to the grisly deaths of the early martyrs of the Church. There is no evidence or testimony of this in the canon.

Well, I assume you are sincere and I'm not trying to suggest you are dishonest in any way. Like any Baptist, I try to stand on scripture's firm ground and understand God's will as best I can. Someone posted earlier on this thread, much as we discussed in the longstanding arguments between Calvinists and Arminians, that sometimes we argue over words whose precise definitions we do not necessarily share. And we all bring hidden personal and cultural and institutional assumptions to our discussion that we may not be fully aware of. This is even true of us Baptists which is probably why there are so many flavors of Baptist. ; )

I try to remember that in these discussion we can sometimes speak at cross-purposes without intending to do so.

[George W. Bush]

I think Mary knew why Christ was being crucified. Don't you? That doesn't make it any less tragic and painful and heart-breaking, but she surely knew her Son to be God and understood that He was dying in her place and ours.

Actually, I think I could argue the point either way. But scripture is silent and, from time to time, I am wise enough to follow it's example.

But it doesn't happen often.

[jo kus]

I think Mary knew why Christ was being crucified. Don't you? That doesn't make it any less tragic and painful and heart-breaking, but she surely knew her Son to be God and understood that He was dying in her place and ours. Perhaps this might make "George" happy, but I don't believe that Mary was given supernatural powers of intellect and was "in" on God's plan of manifesting His love through the crucifixion of Jesus. The Apostles were in the dark, everyone really, until AFTER the Resurrection. I don't think Mary was any different there, although some might think otherwise (which is speculation)... And I PERSONALLY find Mary's LACK of knowledge that much more meritorious - since it required a heck of a lot of faith from Mary, not knowing what were God's reasons, but humbly submitting to His will. I believe God finds such difficult tests more meritorious in His eyes because we, with the gifts given, have passed the test.

Regards

[George W. Bush]

The Apostles were in the dark, everyone really, until AFTER the Resurrection. I don't think Mary was any different there, although some might think otherwise (which is speculation)... And I PERSONALLY find Mary's LACK of knowledge that much more meritorious - since it required a heck of a lot of faith from Mary, not knowing what were God's reasons, but humbly submitting to His will. I believe God finds such difficult tests more meritorious in His eyes because we, with the gifts given, have passed the test.

Thanks for saving me the typing. That's what I thought too. And you are correct in pointing out that we are all creatures who must live by faith. Even Mary and the apostles did. They were just as human and frail and dependent on faith in God as anyone else, lest we forget and put them on a pedestal wearing a halo.

[jo kus]

Mary was no more instrumental to the eventual revelation of Christ in the flesh than were many others in scripture. Adam and Eve, Abraham, David, and innumerable others. The vital choices and sacrifices essential to God's plan made by so many others are all set to nought by elevating Mary so far above all others. That all generations shall call her blessed is indisputed. But you are close to elevating her to the status of Christ Himself.

Mary was a creation, Jesus was/is God. There is a huge difference right there. If God desires to share His divine nature with creation, why would it seem so strange that He would share glory with others? I see this even in magnanimous humans. Is God not better than such people? No, the Church has not forgotten who God is. Honoring Mary is not putting her on equal footing as Christ. No sacrifice is offered to her, only to God. All graces have their source in God. But is God jealous of Mary? That would seem strange!

To me, scripture has only one object, one star: Jesus Christ. There are no co-stars, no co-redemptrixes. All of God's glory is focused upon Christ in the person of Jesus. Everyone else is a bit-player in comparison.

Strictly speaking, Jesus is the theme of the Scriptures. No doubt. But I see God sharing the limelight with us "two-bit" players, and even the lead charecters...

Mary suffered like any human being. But scripture does not attest that she suffered anything comparable to the grisly deaths of the early martyrs of the Church. There is no evidence or testimony of this in the canon.

I, of course, am not refering to Mary dying a martyr's death!!! The Sword that pierced her heart, as prophesied by Simeon, was a sorrowful sword to her soul, that heart, not the organ that pumps blood! Two people's hearts were pierced at Calvary, one physically, and one spiritually.

Someone posted earlier on this thread, much as we discussed in the longstanding arguments between Calvinists and Arminians, that sometimes we argue over words whose precise definitions we do not necessarily share. And we all bring hidden personal and cultural and institutional assumptions to our discussion that we may not be fully aware of. This is even true of us Baptists which is probably why there are so many flavors of Baptist. ; )

I have said that here and agree with it, as well. Much of our disagreements stem from definitions and our total paradigms on viewing the Scriptures. For example, if one has the idea of the Total Depravity of man, then it is quite easy to dispel the notion, found in Scriptures, that man cannot cooperate with God's graces by twisting the text to mean something else. I would bet that Baptists believe that Catholics do the same thing with other doctrines! Thus, the problem of Scripture without an external authority. You cannot know the TRUTH! That is probably what attracted me to Catholicism the most. They claim to be have the authority given to them from the Apostles. It is a bold truth claim or an ignorant mistake... Obviously, I will hold the former!

Brother in Christ

[George W. Bush]

Mary was a creation, Jesus was/is God. There is a huge difference right there. If God desires to share His divine nature with creation, why would it seem so strange that He would share glory with others? I see this even in magnanimous humans. Is God not better than such people?

You are trying to use logic to say something scripture doesn't teach. I find no particular merit in such speculation and restrain such thinking in myself, something I have to work at. And certainly God is better than people. But people do many things for motives that God does not possess. God is a spirit and He is holy, holy, holy. We cannot compare Him to our lowly selves in His motives and actions.

I would bet that Baptists believe that Catholics do the same thing with other doctrines!

Obviously so. The Protestants too, I'm afraid, even if some of them still find merit in baby-splashing. We Baptists will try to be more persuasive. ; )

Thus, the problem of Scripture without an external authority. You cannot know the TRUTH! That is probably what attracted me to Catholicism the most. They claim to be have the authority given to them from the Apostles.

Well, the Renaissance popes can't give you much comfort, can they? This theme of scripture being unknowable without authority and tradition surfaces repeatedly. But if that is the case, you may as well discard your bible and stop studying it. It has become superfluous to the teaching of the men of that Tradition. It might even cause confusion and dissent within your church which is why Rome forbade laymen from its study for so many centuries and murdered so many to punish them for reading scripture in the West.

It is a bold truth claim or an ignorant mistake... Obviously, I will hold the former!

Well, we'll disagree politely then. At least there, I suspect you have the upper-hand because I'm not known for my diplomacy.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "I would agree that a contemporary Jew would not share the same faith as a Christian, but I can't assume that their faith is the same as the OT righteous."

Oh but I do! The OT righteous did not believe in Three Persons united in one Divine Essence (Nature) in a perfect loving community that we know as God(head). The post-Jamnia Judaism (derivative of Pharisees) doesn't either.

But your entire argument appears to be premised on judging OT Jews by today's standards. Certainly you cannot hold the OT righteous accountable for the "new" teachings of Jesus, for example. For the OT righteous, the circle was not yet complete. Jews of today, OTOH, have no such excuse. So I don't think it is fair to judge an OT Jew based on whether he had a fully developed idea of the Trinity.

The Jews know God through the Law; we know God through Christ. The most important difference is that Judaism does not believe man needs to be saved. We do.

Sure, the OT Jew knew what he knew based on what God gave him to know. If faith is a gift of God, then what is the evidence that God gave any of them "faith" in a form that is substandard? Were the OT righteous given a fully developed plan of salvation through Christ that they all rejected? Which of God's teachings that He gave to the OT righteous did they reject and so are not saved?

Your Calvinist friends believe some are acceptable [to God] because they were pre-destioned from all eternity to be acceptable.

Yes, my Calvinist friends do believe that. And SO DO my Catholic friends! :)

Messianic anticipation in Judaism did not begin until about a century before Jesus was born.

What? Do you mean that every Jew just ignored chapters of scripture such as Isaiah 53 (from about 700 B.C.)? How could any of the OT righteous have BEEN righteous if they didn't believe in their own scripture?

[kosta50]

The Books of Ephesians and Colossians were never disputed

I don't want to watste my time with you. You can live in denial, if you so choose. However, the authorship of the Ephesians and Colossians is disputed. And so is the authorship of most NT books.

[fortheDeclaration]

The Books of Ephesians and Colossians were never disputed I don't want to watste my time with you. You can live in denial, if you so choose. However, the authorship of the Ephesians and Colossians is disputed. And so is the authorship of most NT books.

No they are not, now stop being silly.

[kosta50]

Although you will retreat to traditions of the church and writings of the Fathers, I would assert as a Baptist that scripture does not contain a clear description of infants being baptized

Your resume does not contain everything about your life either. To get exactly who you are, one would have to dig a little beyond that. Although we can presume that your resume is absolutely correct, that it containes no lies, it is not even close to who you are.

Tradition is the life of the Church. It is its collective memory. It involves more than the Bible. It represents habits of worship practic ed by the earliest Christians. Just as your parents know some things you don't know, so do we as Christians know only what our fathers and mothers told us, but some of their habits and methods of going about things simply do not have an explanation.

Baptism was likened to the covenant with God and therefore compared to Jewish circumcision. It is easy to see that one would want to establsh a convenant with God at the earliest possible moment.

God bestows His grace on all mankind, on the pious and impious, on the righteous and the unrighteous. God does not want us to try to understand Him because His ways and thoughts are not ours (to understand).

All we do is petition the Holy Spirit to accept the soul of the infant. All we do is bring our little children to Him, as He asked.

[jo kus]

You are trying to use logic to say something scripture doesn't teach.

Sure it does - it is implied, as interpreted by the Church 1900 years ago as witnessed by the writings of the earliest Christians.

But people do many things for motives that God does not possess. God is a spirit and He is holy, holy, holy. We cannot compare Him to our lowly selves in His motives and actions.

No doubt. We can only "estimate" how God is by looking at His Revelation, found in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scriptures. But in the end, we know less about God then we care to admit.

Well, the Renaissance popes can't give you much comfort, can they?

LOL! The Bible doesn't protect the Popes from being sinless. God only protects His Church in passing down the Traditions that He gave the Apostles to pass down, in both oral and written form. Whatever the Renaissance popes did has little to do with what Jesus did in Matthew 16 or John 21, etc...

This theme of scripture being unknowable without authority and tradition surfaces repeatedly. But if that is the case, you may as well discard your bible and stop studying it.

You misunderstand the role of authority in a Catholic's eyes. First, Jesus told His Apostles the type of authoritative figures that they would be : servants. Thus, the bishop is a servant to the people on issues that seek to divide the Church. Such things as Arianism. Is Jesus God or God-like? Where men cannot agree - because it is painfully obvious that the Bible is NOT crystal clear on some issues - we are told to "take it to the Church" the same Church given the power to bind and loosen. Has the Church overstepped its authority at times? No doubt. But in the end, God has provided man an infallible and visible source of KNOWING what the Truth is - rather than through subjective, individual experiences that are rarely coordinated with the rest of the community.

We DEFINITELY read the Bible - but with the mind of the Church. Particular passages are understood a certain way. Thus, if we come across a Romans 3:28, we don't read it "we are saved by faith 'alone'"...

Regards

[kosta50]

No they are not, now stop being silly

One more thing to make your day: Paul was not aware of the Gospels, nor the Gospel writers of Paul's Epistles.

[George W. Bush]

Tradition is the life of the Church. It is its collective memory. It involves more than the Bible. It represents habits of worship practic ed by the earliest Christians.

But habits of worship can become distorted or even mythical. How else to account for the corruption of Reformation era indulgences? Or the veneration of saints who in modern times have been admitted to be myths and not real persons at all. How else to explain the married clergy of Rome to the celibate clergy of Rome in a later era? Don't you think these cause more harm to the faith and the cause of Christ than any benefit anyone ever received? I do.

There is a tendency to 'improve' worship until it is no longer recognizable and becomes mere ritualistic repetition or even blasphemous, reducing the spiritual life of the church to a mere series of actions and not a sign of inner spiritual life. Such practices can also leave the flock as easy prey for the wolves who will always come to devour the sheep.

The temptation toward novelty is one that should be resisted. When we look at the descriptions of the worship and ordinances of the early church (baptism of believers and communion), we should compare our practice to that and not attempt to add to that which scripture prescribes. God is generous but sober churchmen must keep a firm hand on innovation. Baptists trust that scripture is sufficient and that the early church was not deprived of knowledge and instruction by Christ and the apostles.

Baptism was likened to the covenant with God and therefore compared to Jewish circumcision.

The Presbyterians believe something similar to this, known as covenantalism. They believe it establishes Christians as members of a New Covenant, replacing entirely the Jews of the Old Covenant. I disagree with this and retain a certain skepticism of theology that is based on archetypes, much as I described earlier in the matter of Mary being a new Eve. For instance, we baptize both men and women, not only male children. And no man was ever a Jew unless he was circumcized but we know the thief on the cross was saved though there is no indication he was baptized and, likewise, we can surmise that many thousands have undoubtedly repented their sins prior to death but never received the ordinance of baptism due to lack of opportunity. We have no reason to doubt that their faith and reliance upon Christ alone failed to secure their eternity because they may have died suddenly in battle or from other causes. Nevertheless, baptism and communion are expected as normal events in Christian life. Baptism to seal you to your fellow-believers and take a first step in being Christ-like because even our Savior was baptized and also as the first outward sign and testimony that we have placed our confidence in Him and laid claim to the promises of scripture. If we are His children, then we can obey His simple command to believe and be baptized.

It is fine to know and be familiar with the early church. But in scripture when people under the conviction of the Holy Spirit asked Jesus and His disciples, "What must we do to be saved?" the answer was uniformly "Repent and be baptized" or "Believe and be baptized". Not "be baptized and then maybe someday you'll believe or be saved". How insecure that sounds by comparison. What, precisely, is there in the scriptural descriptions that is insufficient or unsatisfying? What is there to keep us from that same simple obedience and observance?

It is easy to see that one would want to establsh a convenant with God at the earliest possible moment.

Infants want their mother's bosom, soft voices, to be clean and comfortable and secure and well-fed. We Baptists will dunk 'em if they ever start crawling out of their cribs and confessing Christ as Savior. So far, no takers. I do recall a preacher baptizing a few children who were as young as four or five. Eyebrows were raised slightly among the older members but not a word was spoken against it in the church because Christ did say "Suffer the children". So the church kept quiet and obeyed His command even if some might have doubted whether those children understood God's plan of salvation fully enough at such a tender age.

Baptists do allow and encourage parents to bring their infants in dedication before the church, to declare their intent to raise them Christian and to ask the church to help them in that. It accomplishes the same purpose but does not confuse a family's or church's dedication to a child with his baptism as a believer, with his opportunity to confess Christ and lay his claim to the promises of scripture exactly as all those described in scripture in the early church did.

God bestows His grace on all mankind, on the pious and impious, on the righteous and the unrighteous.

This is the notion of general grace which the Arminians favor. It is problematic. If that grace were sufficient to actually save all mankind, then we would have universal salvation. But it doesn't, judging by the wickedness and disbelief we see in the world. So a little sprinkling of grace is insufficient unless you then further posit that this general grace just barely makes it possible for people who are good enough or smart enough to take advantage of it. It still requires God to 'play favorites'. But if God's overriding intent is to save all men, then He would dispense enough grace that all should be saved. And yet, obviously He does not. Something is more important to God than universal salvation: the exercise of faith. And it is this exercise of faith that is the object of God's interest in Man; it is in the exercise of faith that we equal or perhaps even exceed His angels in His favor. To the Calvinist, God quickens our spirits by grace to rouse us from spiritual death and give us the second birth in the Spirit. This is why scripture emphasizes that all God's children are 'born again'. They are born of their mothers into the flesh but, to be Christian, they must be born of the Spirit in Christ. At that time, they are eager for baptism and take their first step toward becoming a Christian. After baptism, they can then participate in communion. In all of scripture, the pattern is clear. Persons receive the gospel or are convicted by preaching or teaching, they grasp that message and they want to be saved. They repent (as much as they are able) and are baptized as soon as possible thus becoming eligible for communion in their church.

Given that you believe in pedobaptism, one does wonder why you do not also practice pedocommunion? You could put some grape juice or sacramental wine in the tiny infant's bottle. Why then would you deny the tyke the opportunity if you truly and adamantly believe that the baptist of infants is of spiritual effect? Why deny the Christian infant his communion?

All we do is petition the Holy Spirit to accept the soul of the infant.

This is interesting. Apparently, you do not share the RC view here. They seem to teach that baptism frees the infant from the bonds of original sin so that it is possible for him to be saved. At that point, the explanations get somewhat garbled, however many Jesuits are assigned the task of explanation. However, let us assume that two equally godly couples each have a baby, one on Saturday and one on Sunday. On the following Sunday, the Saturday baby is baptized. The Sunday baby is not because it is only the seventh day after birth. That afternoon, both babies suddenly die. So, is the Saturday baby going to go to heaven and the Sunday baby end up in hell or limbo because of the circumstances or actions of their parents? If there is no difference in their destination, then infant baptism can be of no effect.

To quote the misquotings of St. Paul, God forbid. It can be readily seen that this would make God capricious and unjust. And there is no hint of such a character blemish in our God in scripture. He is ever-loving and merciful toward us. But it is to exactly these kinds of situations that these traditions of the church, found nowhere in scripture, will lead us. And to support them, we will require ever more elaborate explanations and hair-splitting because we will not accept the simple truth. The eternal fate of infants is in God's hands, not in ours. We care for the body and the mind but the soul can only be claimed by Him. We cannot offer Him the soul of another because we possess no soul but our own. And even our own soul is a dead soul until God quickens our spirt with His grace. Again, it is all of God and none of our own doing. And that which we cannot do for ourselves we surely cannot do for others, even for infants.

For Baptists, we practice a simple faith because in all of scripture, we see only the practice of a simple faith by persons who were called from spiritual death to eternal life by God and at His will.

Now, we Baptists do have traditions of sorts ourselves despite not being as ancient as other churches. Just try to tell us that our potluck dinners aren't necessary and may not be entirely biblical. Then you'll see some indignant Baptists. You could probably talk them out of bible study more easily. I'm more than half-serious about this. So every church has traditions that they cling to. But only the promises of scripture are certain.

I flagged the most active recent posters since I didn't want to miss a chance to offend everyone equally. FWIW, ftD is a Baptist like myself but more knowledgable. However, I am Calvinistic in theology and he is Arminian though I think he prefers to label his theology as 'Right' and mine as 'Wrong'. We Calvinists though do not suggest that our opponents are heretics, merely mistaken about the scope of God's sovereignty in our salvation. We are both advocates for the soundness and reliability of the KJV as is Dr. E., a Presbyterian who is also Calvinist but may be a known baby-splasher as she has several sons, no doubt fine young men. I was curious if the rest of you are Orthodox or if some are Catholic.

[George W. Bush]

Whatever the Renaissance popes did has little to do with what Jesus did in Matthew 16 or John 21, etc...

Aha! So those popes don't count in the Tradition. : )

[HarleyD]

Your Calvinist friends believe some are acceptable [to God] because they were pre-destioned from all eternity to be acceptable.

We should emphasize what you rightfully pointed out as true, the only reason any of us are acceptable to God is because God has made us that way. This is what grace is all about. And the Bible clearly states this was before the foundations of the world when our names were added to the Book of Life.

[Agrarian]

"But the RC and Orthodox do seem to hold a view that Mary was not a normal human being even prior to her birth."

True for Catholicism, false for Orthodoxy.

[Agrarian]

"If there is no difference in their destination, then infant baptism can be of no effect."

Baby A is born on Saturday. His parents don't feed him. Baby B is born on Sunday. His mother nurses him. Both die on Tuesday in car wrecks on their way to visit Grandma.

Since both ended up dead anyway, the feeding of Baby B had no effect on that baby, did it?

Orthodoxy does not think of salvation as a mere off and on switch... What grace and benefit does the baptized infant receive that the unbaptized infant doesn't, in the Orthodox Church? I really don't pretend to be able to define it. But that the infant who is baptized receives something real, something good, and something that benefits them -- of that I have no doubt.

[George W. Bush]

Since both ended up dead anyway, the feeding of Baby B had no effect on that baby, did it?

The effect on Baby B was that, even though he died as all living things die, he did not die hungry or without knowing the comfort of being fed by his mother. It is a world of difference to that infant.

You are trying to prove very dissimilar things by analogy. Analogies are never true. Only up to a certain point can they be similar.

Orthodoxy does not think of salvation as a mere off and on switch...

If salvation means heaven and anything else means hell (or Limbo) then we have two alternatives that are pretty starkly absolute in their consequence. So 'saved' is pretty much an off and on switch. There is no such thing as "a little bit saved". God's grace and salvation are either all-sufficient to enter God's eternal presence in heaven or it is not. The thief upon the cross was not "a little bit saved". He was saved at once and for eternity by the promise and command of Jesus as He became fully Christ The Redeemer. And that same salvation is available to us by the repeated promises of scripture, written as plainly as they can be expressed.

What grace and benefit does the baptized infant receive that the unbaptized infant doesn't, in the Orthodox Church? I really don't pretend to be able to define it. But that the infant who is baptized receives something real, something good, and something that benefits them -- of that I have no doubt.

Well if you're going to concede this, then I don't quite know what to say. This is actually more irritating than a ten-thousand word Jesuitical response would be.

I'm trying to feel like I won something but I'm not convincing myself. ;)

Have a lovely evening. I am not, BTW, trying to herd you Orthodox or Catholics into a Baptist church. If you ever want to come, you'd be welcome. But I believe in letting God lead His own where He wills and at His own pace. As Spurgeon suggested, we Baptists can worry about converting all those other churches after we finish preaching the gospel to all nations and all non-Christians. A practical man, Spurgeon.