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

That's flat out wrong. Consider looking at the Council of Trent for official teachings on indulgences. Even before the Council, the Popes began to curb abuses of the legitimate practice of indulgences

Oh, please. This is nothing more than revisionist history touted by the Roman Church to excuse the egregious error. Luther 95 Theses was all about indulgences and the abuse goes back to Wycliff in the early 1400s.

In the fourteenth century we find the partial substitution of money gifts for works of mercy and charity, a fact which already laid the train for the Reformation: even notable Roman Catholics such as Juan de Valdez, the brother of the secretary of the Emperor Charles V, admitted the corruption of such practices:

European Institute for Protestant Studies

If the Church was trying to reign in indulgences, Pope Leo certainly wouldn't have sent Johann Tetzel around to collect money for the building of the Vatican. I'm sure Pope Leo, known for his lavish spending habits, was wringing his hands over how to stop the "abuse". Did the Vatican ever return the money Tetzel stole for his practices?

The Catholic Church owes Luther an apology. The Orthodox, much to their credit, had nothing to do with this. A simple, "Luther, we're truly sorry; will you forgive us." will do.

To be precise, the poor Chevalier was executed by the French state (not the Catholic Church) two hundred years after the Council of Trent.

Of course, Canon Law forbid the Church to shed blood herself. For God's sake don't try those God forsaken arguments on me, they're worthless. Nothing personal, mind you, I'm sure you're a fine person, and I say that sincerely, I'm just way past the point of being able to swallow that kind of drink.

To be precise, the poor Chevalier was executed by the French state (not the Catholic Church) two hundred years after the Council of Trent.

Of course, Canon Law forbid the Church to shed blood herself. For God's sake don't try those God forsaken arguments on me, they're worthless. Nothing personal, mind you, I'm sure you're a fine person, and I say that sincerely, I'm just way past the point of being able to swallow that kind of drink.

Sorry for the double post.

So we bring them to be baptized, chrismated, churched, blessed, and especially, communed with His Body and Blood...

This is is where Baptists would not agree. Jesus said to suffer the children to come to Him. He did not say "You must bring them to Me". So a Baptist will stay with the plain teachings of scripture. And others will have to find other ways to explain to themselves their practice upon unknowing children.

I can recognize the appeal of the practices. But they are not found in scripture. And we Baptists are pretty firm on the idea that all vital teachings are found in scripture and that any vital salvific doctrine will be found in scripture in multiple testimonies. Baptists practice a very simple faith, perhaps seeming to live in something of a spiritual poverty to those who have built up elaborate worship practices over the centuries.

I do not agree that baptism is for the remission of sins.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized each one of you into the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38

It is through Baptism that we are buried with Christ - and thus, the Blood of Christ washes away our sins... I find your disbelief concerting on this issue, as the Bible clearly points out that Baptism is THE point when we become children of God and enter into a relationship with the Lord.

"For we are buried with him by baptism into death, that just as the Christ was raised up from the dead to the glory of the Father, likewise we also walk in newness of life." Romans 6:4

So, Baptism is a command of Jesus and all believers should be baptized, but our final resting place is in no way directed by whether that one command is followed.

Absolutely speaking, you are correct, a person doesn't even have to even KNOW that Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross for their sins to be potentially saved. However, for those of us who know, you must be baptized. This is how the Spirit comes to men to forgive sins.

Yes, you have, but I had asked because you said that scriptures support this, and I didn't know where that was in the scriptures.

The stock answer is "what Biblical verse says that all Christian beliefs must be written explicitly in the Bible". It is implicit once Paul makes the comparison between Jesus and Adam.

I don't know if that would be the only way. Paul says that he received the Gospel directly from Christ, not from any man, so with that kind of access, it is entirely possible that he received this revelation also directly from Christ.

One could just as easily say that Paul's reception of the Gospel came from Christ through the Apostles. The Gospel, technically, is from God.

So everyone was SURE that Mary never sinned, but not everyone was sure about Jesus, such that Paul had to mention it??? Does that make sense?

Of course! Just like Sola Scriptura makes sense to you!

But seriously, I would think that Mary was the most popular Christian during the Apostolic Age, since she must have had a lot of stories to tell about Christ. I think people would know and respect her very highly. The sinless part probably comes after the first generation.

I said that I had heard of the example of Cana being used to show that Mary sinned. I said that I could let that "slide" for lack of evidence. Then, in an open and general sense I asked if it was a sin to disbelieve. You know that Protestants do not distinguish between venial and mortal sin, so to us sin is sin. Therefore, there is no sliding in terms of sin. I was letting slide the idea that Cana was an example of Mary's sin.

Is this your way of apologizing for realizing that you accused me of misquoting you and were wrong? You said Mary sinned... I quoted you. End of story...

Regards

So far as I can see, the West makes no distinction between Essence and uncreated energies.

We call "uncreated energy" created, so there is a distinction between "Essence" and "energy".

I am not an expert on all this, but I see the Tridentine definition of sanctifying grace as "God's justice, not by means of which HE is Himself just, but by which He makes us just". This excludes the identity of Grace with the Holy Spirit. Romans 5:5 is cited: "The charity of God is poured forth in our heart by the Holy Spirit, who is given to us"

The Holy Spirit is the mediator of the love of God, which is given to us int he justification, and is therefore distinguished from Sanctifying Grace, as the gift from the giver...

Grace is, however, a participation in the Divine Nature. For example, the Church in the Liturgy says "Grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His divinity who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity". In the Preface of the Feast of Christ's Ascension into Heaven "He was assumed into Heaven in order that we might be partakers in His divinity".

According to 2 Peter 1:4, we are elevated to participation in the Divine Nature. Other Scriptures cite indirectly that we participate in the Divine Nature by an elevation of our humanity to the Divine - BY GOD - as generation consists in the communication of the nature of the Generator to the generated. I am probably saying nothing new to you here. This is esp. noted by St. Athanasius famous quote "The Word became man, so that we might become God". The point of this is that Catholics believe the same thing, expressed differently. The West considers the sacraments ex opere operato, the sacrament is completed by the completed sacramental rite, because the priest is considered in the person of Christ. What is the action of the priest in the East?

The Treasury of Merits is based more on the Body of Christ and our participation as part of the Communion of Saints then in the Trinity's created vs uncreated energies.

All in all, an Ecumenical Council has not defined this area, so I don't see a right or wrong on this matter.

Regards

Oh, please. This is nothing more than revisionist history touted by the Roman Church to excuse the egregious error. Luther 95 Theses was all about indulgences and the abuse goes back to Wycliff in the early 1400s.

Have I ever denied that there were abuses in indulgences? No! But there were already many other Catholics calling for the abuses to be reigned in before Luther. The difference is that they didn't reject the entire Church. The fact of the matter is that you are WRONG to say that it took the Church 100 years AFTER Luther to say something before the Church did something! That is idiotic - all you have to do is read the 25th Session of the Council of Trent, promulgated less than 50 years after Luther's "Theses".

Did the Vatican ever return the money Tetzel stole for his practices?

Did the Protestant "Deformers" ever pay back the Church for all of the cathedrals and art work they destroyed? What about in England, where practically all of the Church's property was stolen by greedy men pretending to be religious reformers? Didn't you know that the "Reformation" was over money, not religion? Do you think the common man or petty baron gave a hoot about justification by faith alone??? That is pretty gullible, if you think THAT was the motive!

The Catholic Church owes Luther an apology. The Orthodox, much to their credit, had nothing to do with this. A simple, "Luther, we're truly sorry; will you forgive us." will do.

He was given an opportunity to recant. Perhaps you should read the history of those fateful years before 1521 and find out how foul Luther really was and his grandstanding against the Church to win points with the greedy princes of Germany who were chomping at the bit to rob the Church of land and property. His wild claims that the Church's Councils were not infallible sealed his fate as the premier inventor of a gospel that continues to tickle men's ears even today, a gospel that is refuted from Scriptures by each generation of Catholics, even on this very thread.

The typical German could care less about theology - it was all about power and politics. Why listen to Rome when you can listen to your local prince who has dubbed himself the infallible religious authority? Why NOT take some of the Church's property and Land? With enough thought, I am sure the German barons could have come up with ANYTHING to eventually steal what they wanted from Rome. It wasn't the first time that secular powers fought against the Church, and it wasn't be the last.

Regards

"Jesus said to suffer the children to come to Him. He did not say "You must bring them to Me". So a Baptist will stay with the plain teachings of scripture."

I'd say that this is a pretty plain teaching of Scripture. Parents were bringing their children to Christ for a blessing, and he ordered his disciples not to forbid it, and he laid his hands on them and blessed them.

If you had been there, would you have brought your infant or child to Christ for Him to touch him and bless him? Or would you believe that no blessing would result because your child was not of the age of reason, and thus have kept your child away until he could decide for himself?

I think this is a general statement and reflects that Peter was speaking in the sense of the Old Covenant...

Well, yes, of course. As a Jew he knew very well that he is not to share and mingle with gentiles. Judaism is an exclusive religion: there is Israel (which to them is synonymous with Jews), the people of God, and here is Peter who is now made aware that "Israel" in the New Covenant includes believing Gentiles as well. That's equivalent to turning Judaism upside down!

Since not all men are saved, then it follows that universal salvation is not His objective and that a general grace equally dispensed to equal effect (initially) in all men would be pointless

You are subjecting God to your (human) logic, placing logical necessity above Him. Even Peter recognized that God is not partial, that he loves the sinners as well. Just because we are incapable of that doesn't mean God is. The Scripture is clear that God would have all men saved; just because we don't understand why this not the case doesn't follow that He doesn't.

The Orthodox (and Catholics) maintain the patristic belief (Augustine notwithstanding) that God gave made us potentially good and therefore our salvation a possibility based in part on our cooperation with His uncreated energies (i.e. synergism).

In other words, God, by His own choice, gives us a choice, thereby we either reject God's grace and become the authors of our perdition, or we turn to God and ask Him to save us. At no time are we authors of our salvation, but simply willing servants of God. He does not make our choice for us. We do.

What a cheap and underhanded trick to play on a simple Baptist

LOL!!!

It seems that in the East, you had checks and balances to avoid such scandal and corruption. You had bishops in the old sense but no popes. Of course, you had the advantage of what to avoid nearby so that must have firmed your resolve as well

Eastern ecclesial structure hasn't changed either. The Church is made up of the priesthood and the laity, or the "people of God." Ultimately, the final authority (the final check and balance) are the people of God, the Orthodox laity. That is true when it comes to deposing a bishop as well as making him a saint. The bishops are not rulers but servants. So, it is the Church, the ekklesia, the assembly of believers, that has kept the faith unchanged.

Funny thing is, there is no seriously strong desire to change anything in the Orthodox Church. I guess you would have to be Orthodox to know why. :)

" Grace is, however, a participation in the Divine Nature."

This is denied by the Eastern Fathers and Orthodoxy if what you mean by Divine Nature is the Divine Essence. Now if in fact you do mean the Divine Essence, then, as both +Gregory Palamas and Yannaras point out, so called created grace becomes an absolute necessity for your theology to work out.

Jo, this theological difference, perhaps even more so than even the issues surrounding the appropriate exercise of Petrine authority, is where ultimately any attempt at reunion will likely founder.

Because of the Roman belief in created grace, your priests, for example, have to act in the person of Christ at the Eucharist or other sacraments, almost as some sort of magician. By establishing the theory of created grace and either denying or ignoring the distinction between the Divine Essence and the uncreated Divine Energies, the epiklesis in the Divine Liturgy disappears. Its not the Holy Spirit, or uncreated Divine Energies which changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, but rather by the words of the priest. The same goes for the rubrics of confession. The priest absolves (absolvo te). If you think about it, Jo, without the distinction between Divine Essence and uncreated Divine Energies, or for that matter, the division of the uncreated energies into created and uncreated grace, much of Western theology begins to fall apart, certainly, the whole concept of the Magisterium and the Treasury of Merits goes out the window and with that indulgences and likely the Augustinian concept of Original Sin (and its necessary corrollary, the Immaculate Conception) and perhaps even purgatory.

What about forgeries? Since we don't have the original writings, how can we know we have the ACTUAL writings? Paul himself was concerned about this in 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; Col 4:18; 2 Thes 3:17; Philem 19.; check esp. 2 Thes 2:2 ... So, again, this destroys the concept of self authentication.

If God does not authenticate His own work, but rather the Church does it instead, then the Church is equal to or greater than God. The Church is supposed to be the bride of Christ. The Church is supposed to be obedient to God's word. This is not the Church you are describing.

If one were to use U.S. Federal Guidelines that we use today, the Bible would not fare very well in Self-Authentication. If you want to know about the specifics, read U.S. Code Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules no. 902. Only a few of the NT books would hold up to court scrutiny, as they mention an author. The Book of component parts cannot be its own criterion for infallibility. Any judge would laugh you out of court with this process and argument.

I disagree. First, we are talking about the Federal Rules of Evidence (Criminal). Rule 902 deals with exceptions to the normal rule that "Extrinsic evidence of authenticity [must be shown] as a condition precedent to admissibility...". 95% of this rule deals with public documents that have already been authenticated by a proper, authoritative governmental entity.

In the case of the Bible, the only proper authoritative governmental entity is God Himself, not the Church. But our secular Federal government does not recognize God or the Church as authorities. So it is no surprise that the Bible probably doesn't apply to Rule 902. If we had an Iranian-style government, then there would be no problem.

I don't think any NT book would survive Rule 902 because it named an author. The point of the Rule is to save time in admitting material into evidence because it has already been authenticated by the government. Our government would not recognize either of our arguments for authenticating the truth of what's in the Bible.

Discussing the whole as inspired is irrelevant until the component parts are proven to be inspired and infallible and I see that done nowhere in Scripture.

I know you don't and it is a matter of scriptural interpretation. The Church couldn't possibly allow God to authenticate His own work, because then we wouldn't have the Church to thank for doing it in place of God.

Do you really think that the Bible fell out of the heavens?

In a certain manner of speaking, perhaps. I just know that the Bible does not say it is Church-breathed, it says something very very different.

Isn't it clear that the Holy Spirit operates through His Church? Why is He in competition with the "Pillar and Foundation of the Truth"?

I do believe that the Spirit operates through His Church. It's just that you believe that you own the Church and I don't believe anyone owns God's Church except God. You might say things like that Apostolic succession proves you own the Church because today's bishops can trace their "lineage" all the way back to the Apostles. Why can't every Protestant say the same thing? Many of the original Reformers were Catholic leaders at some point, weren't they?

So, I do not think that proves anything in terms of error or straying from the faith. I don't think God ever promised to protect the RCC, no matter what they did. History proves this is clearly not the case. God doesn't even (totally) protect individual leaders within the RCC, as we have seen. So I cannot believe that whatever the Church does is definitionally correct. God promised to be with His Church, the community of believers. Members of that community, of any denomination, even in groups, can stray away from God's faith. We each believe that has happened to the other side.

Sorry if you disapprove of our Lady and Mother of the Body of Christ. As to Jeremiah, similarities does not mean coorelation. You may recall that there were Isis cults that preached similar things about the Resurrection of God. Does that mean Christianity has pagan roots?

I do not disapprove of Mary, she was truly blessed. I disapprove of elevating her at the expense of God Himself.

Your comparison only works if you are willing to admit that the Pope was not speaking as a Christian. Somehow I doubt you are willing to do that. :) Also, is this a Catholic interpretation, that "exactly word for word" really means "similar"?

Of course, I disagree on your take that "because of created energies, the whole Roman system comes crashing down". This is ridiculous, Kolo.

I don't see how pursuing this avenue of theology will make one more humble, more holy, or to abide in Christ. IF it was so critical - that misunderstanding the inner workings of the Trinity were so important for the common man to come to God - then Christ would have been more clear in the Apostolic Traditions passed down through the Apostles - and as a result, we wouldn't have to rely on speculative theology. I just don't see this distinction that you make done by the Church Fathers until AFTER the Nicean Creed.

If the issue was addressed by an Ecumenical Council and defined, then we have a dogma, something that we have religious assent of. Until then, one is legitimately able to hold either your OPINION, or the Latin Church's OPINION. Even IF the East has "always" believed it "everywhere" doesn't mean that the West has...

Perhaps this is an issue that will be addressed if the East and West get together in an Ecumenical Council. But until then, the Spirit isn't making it clear enough to the entire Church, so it is not time to make such "declarations" that Rome is in error...

Regards

Hot...:) (in the sunny South :)

Jo, I am not talking about the inner workings of the Trinity. I think I've said that before and I thought I was clear on that.

As for the Roman system crashing down, clearly it hasn't because it is held together with a type of theology which is, so we believe, at base in error. Protestantism is in error in a number areas, but that hasn't crashed down either nor has Mohammadenism.

"I don't see how pursuing this avenue of theology will make one more humble, more holy, or to abide in Christ."

But indeed it has, for a couple of thousand years in the East. What you seem to posit is a systematic theology which requires a submission, even of the Fathers, to the Magisterium. Orthodoxy won't accept that, Jo.

"Jo, this theological difference, perhaps even more so than even the issues surrounding the appropriate exercise of Petrine authority, is where ultimately any attempt at reunion will likely founder.

Because of the Roman belief in created grace, your priests, for example, have to act in the person of Christ at the Eucharist or other sacraments, almost as some sort of magician. By establishing the theory of created grace and either denying or ignoring the distinction between the Divine Essence and the uncreated Divine Energies, the epiklesis in the Divine Liturgy disappears. Its not the Holy Spirit, or uncreated Divine Energies which changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, but rather by the words of the priest. The same goes for the rubrics of confession. The priest absolves (absolvo te). If you think about it, Jo, without the distinction between Divine Essence and uncreated Divine Energies, or for that matter, the division of the uncreated energies into created and uncreated grace, much of Western theology begins to fall apart, certainly, the whole concept of the Magisterium and the Treasury of Merits goes out the window and with that indulgences and likely the Augustinian concept of Original Sin (and its necessary corrollary, the Immaculate Conception) and perhaps even purgatory."

K, this is perhaps one of the best, concise, and to the point pieces of writing that I have encountered on FR in some time. You've been spending your time praying rather than hanging out on FR again, haven't you? :-)

I lived in the old Confederacy for 17 years, and really learned to love it. Had the good sense to marry a Southern girl. I'm sure you get the Southern reference to the handle I use here on FR.

But as much as I love it down there, I just can't take the heat...

But I do love it when Union Station sings that great song "The Bright Sunny South," especially on Allison Krauss' live CD.

"Funny thing is, there is no seriously strong desire to change anything in the Orthodox Church. I guess you would have to be Orthodox to know why. :)"

As I have pointed out before, part of the reason why change is so imperceptible in the Orthodox Church is that we are constantly in a state of returning to our patristic roots. Because it is a return to roots, it doesn't seem like change. Yet each time we do it, there are subtle differences that change with the circumstances in which the Orthodox Church finds itself.

What is different is that we don't approach a new situation and say, "what new thing can we invent to come up with an answer to this problem?" We rather approach the new situation with the attitude of "the reason why we are having problems is that we need to return to the patristic mind." To move forward, we look back.

Any change that happens is, as a result, organic and virtually imperceptible.

And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between the Vatican II "adaptation" to the modern world and the Orthodox adaptation to the modern world.

"Actually, I believe this to be the correct view of things from the other side. To me, if one wished to be faithful to traditions, one would be Orthodox. I simply see a problem with relying upon traditions too much."

Your candor is as refreshing as your perceptions are accurate! :-)

"I suppose the Orthodox would say the Catholics left. Perhaps us Protestants can start saying the Catholics left us. I never thought about it like that."

Well, it works for us, but it really wouldn't work for you. Keep in mind that after the Schism, the Orthodox simply continued believing, worshipping, and practicing the ascetic/spiritual life in exactly the same way that they had always done.

Protestantism was not a matter of a pre-existing tradition that then separated from Catholicism. The way that Protestants were believing and worshipping 100 years after Luther started the ball rolling was very different from the way their Catholic parents and grandparents had believed and worshipped. There was a real break and real innovation -- even if that break and innovation was intended to be grounded in the primitive church of a millenium and a half earlier.

"I can’t quibble over this except to say the same is true for Catholics and Orthodox. There are some things the Fathers states that we all would agree upon. There are other things were we all might have sharp disagreements (I doubt any of us would agree with Augustine that all unbaptized babies automatically go to hell.). I’m sure the Catholic Church had great reasoning based upon the traditions of the fathers to give the Pope the final authority or the ability of the Church to sell indulgences."

There is certainly truth in what you say. But there are substantial differences. As I have pointed out before, Catholic usage of the patristic witnesses is subservient to the Magesterium, and amounts to ballast and proof-texting. Protestant usage of patristic writings seem mainly to me to be in the spirit of "see, Catholics, even these guys you call saints disagree with you on this or that point."

If you tell a Protestant that a particular Father contradicts Protestant teaching, he will say, "so what?" If you tell a Catholic that a particular Father contradicts a Catholic teaching, he will show how you can technically read that Father in a way that supports the Magesterium.

If you tell an Orthodox Christian that a given Father seems to contradict Orthodox teaching, he will likely place that Father in the greater Patristic tradition, and either acknowledge that there is ambiguity in the Patristic tradition or show that this particular Father is out of the consensus Patrum.

"If memory serves me correctly, it was the Church that asked Luther to recant; the Church never questioned whether it was in error. It was 100 years later that the Church finally admitted that selling indulgences was a bad thing. Rome was obviously wrong and admitted so by its action. Luther did turn to the writings of the scriptures to prove they were wrong. They just didn’t want to hear it.
Now given that situation what would you do? Would you ignore what is in the scriptures and just go along with the crowd recanting what the Bible states or, would you take your stand with the Bible and face up the Church? This is, after all, what this article is about."

First of all, as you know, you aren't going to find Orthodox defending medieval Catholicism and its abuses. We see that whole corrupt and confused world as being the logical consequence of being cut off from the rest of the Church.

That said, this line of argumentation is disingenuous in the extreme. If the sale of indulgences were all it was about, the Protestant world of 1700 wouldn't look much different from the Catholic world of 1700 -- since in neither world were indulgences being sold.

Luther seems to have seen a window of opportunity, and taken it. Again, we Orthodox have a particular perspective on this, since we completely agree that the medieval Catholic world had serious, serious problems -- the after-effects of which are still with us today, both in Catholicism and Protestantism.

But Luther, et al, did not use this time as an opportunity to return to the patristic understanding of Scripture and the faith. They rather elevated their personal interpretations above that of *any* era of the Church.

There is no doubt that the Catholic world of Luther's day was not going to accept anything from him but a complete recanting and return to the status quo. He would have been wrong to recant under those circumstances. But this fact does not subtract from the adverse effects of the alternative that Luther, et al, actually offered. A golden opportunity was squandered.