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

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

[Forest Keeper]

[at the transfiguration] They knew what John the Baptist looked like and this dude was not it. One can only surmise that immediately following this event that our Lord Jesus was telling His disciples John would be similar in power to Elijah.

That sounds reasonable to me. It seems to me that John the Baptist warranted a standing equal to or greater than any of the "heavy weights".

What puzzles me is how Peter knew these two people were Moses and Elijah.

The only thing I can figure for this is that in verse 3 it says that Jesus, Moses, and Elijah were standing there talking. Perhaps Jesus greeted them by name, and Peter heard.

[Agrarian]

"We realize that there is only ONE divine principle "sending" into time the Spirit. As I have struggled to say, we do not believe in two different essences sending forth a third!"

We have here a confusion of terminology in this post that is truly going to take some teasing out, especially when combined with your later comments on the "divine nature."

I have only time for a couple of observations.

By using the term "one divine principle," you are, perhaps inadvertently, demonstrating how Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism look differently at the Trinity, and indeed the Nicene Creed differently from the first line.

At the heart of the fundamental problem with the filioque is the fact that it creates an impersonal center to the Holy Trinity.

In Orthodoxy, unity is found in a person -- the Father. Not in an essence, a nature, or a principle.

The Spirit proceeds from a person -- the Father. He is send, in the divine economy, by the Son. He is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. All of this is a Mystery. All of it is highly personal, none of it is abstract.

St. Peter certainly uses the phrase "partakers of the divine nature." As with so many things, *before* the advent of specific heresies, terminology was often used interchangably. The phenomenon is the same regardless of the terminology used at a given point in time in the Church.

Hence St. Ambrose and St. Hilary, we Orthodox would believe, lived their spiritual lives through participation in the divine energies no less than did St. John Chyrsostom or St. Gregory Palamas -- even if the terminology used did not have the precision and nuances of Palamite theology, which was honed because of facing heresy.

[Forest Keeper]

The Orthodox Church to this day stipulates that a woman is not to come to church until 40 days after the childbirth, which is the reason why so many Orthodox baptize their children at that time.

Thanks, Kosta. I guess the rules IS the rules. :)

[Forest Keeper]

"And his disciples asked Him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?" >>The scribes were deceiving the people, saying that Jesus was not the Christ, for if He were, Elijah would first have come. But they did not know that there are two comings of Christ, the Forerunner of the first being John, and of the second Elijah. Christ then explains this to the disciples.

This is a very interesting take on this whole story. Thanks for posting it.

[Forest Keeper]

Of course. This "knowledge" was called Apostolic Tradition - which you seem to refuse to take into consideration when developing doctrines and what God has revealed to man.

Well, there is lots of "knowledge" that is called Apostolic Tradition. I do trust that which was later written down in the Bible. Writings after that have to pass the same test that any other teaching has to pass unto this day and forward. I cannot trust later writers automatically based only on their say so and their "pedigree".

It reminds me of a status symbol in the 20th century. One knew that he was under the best of care if his shrink, and his shrink's shrink, and so on, could go all the way back to Freud! For similar reasons I think this idea was also wrong because each succeeding "generation" brings with it new opportunities for the insertion of human error.

[Forest Keeper]

By logically approaching Christianity from an unbiased position, one becomes Catholic, or one does not become Christian. There is no argument that supports Protestantism's separation from God's Church.

Really. So, I guess all of the hundreds of millions of us Protestants in the world all approach Christianity either illogically or with a bias? OTOH, all of you Catholics approach Christianity quite logically and without bias? Well, whatever office you're running for, I hope you're a Republican. :)

There are many arguments that support the Protestants' separation from the Roman Catholic Church, of course we never left God's Church. Perhaps the main one from me can be found even in your statement, your claim to ownership of God's Church. I see in Catholicism the greatest emphasis on the power, importance, and greatness of men. In each of these cases, I see God being made less in order that man can become more. My "private" interpretation of the scriptures says that just the opposite should be happening. I suspect that this idea is one of the very reasons the Reformation came about.

But obey once the Church has formulated doctrine as given it by the Holy Spirit. Part of having God as your king is to obey your king. Are you obeying God or yourself? ... But when the Church says something - we obey, as if God Himself is commanding us. We humbly submit ourselves to God's Will, even if we don't fully understand.

Well, if I use your framing, then I do not believe the RCC is God or speaks for God. Therefore, I cannot obey the RCC. I obey God and His word instead of the RCC.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "From God's POV, which is what we're talking about, Christ's death was "complete" before the Incarnation, so to speak. "

Actually, in this case, no. God's salvific work affects us in real time, through Divine Economy.

Is it correct then, that the Orthodox view is that there is no predestination of any kind? I think I remember that being the case, but just to be sure. ... And if true, then how does this square with God knowing in advance who will choose Him? I mean, if God knows, which I assume you believe, but there is no predestination, then is it like God just sits back, doesn't interfere in any way, and lets happen whatever happens?

[kosta50]

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

That is soooo right on target, Agrarian. We start with the premise that the Apostolic faith is perfect and we are not. Therefore, we deal with our imperfections by going back to the perfect faith.

Others believe that it needs constant adjustment to "fit" the modern world in order to make it "right."

[Forest Keeper]

It's not the suffering itself that makes her a "co-redeemer". It is the fact that she participated and gave of herself to God during the event that untied the knot of disobedience tied by Adam and Eve ...

So Mary's a co-redeemer because she said "Sure, God, I'll have your baby"? Did this really take a ton of faith on her part? And, I don't seem to remember Mary ever actually being asked if she wanted in on this. My version says that the angel pretty much laid out how it was going to be, and then Mary said fine. In her position, what else was she going to say? How would you stack up the faith of Mary shown here to that of Abraham, or Daniel, or many others? I still don't see how this distinguishes her to the level of co-redeemer.

Faith is not "saving" WITHOUT those deeds of love. Remember what James said? "Does that (workless) faith save?" We need both.

I am saying that with true faith, both WILL happen. I gather that you are saying that with true faith both MIGHT happen.

I don't see all the fuss about crying over the fact that Mary is highly regarded by Catholics and Orthodox. Would Christ be happy about such disparaging talk about His Mother?

I'm only "crying" because this "high regard" detracts from Christ. Every prayer sent to Mary is one less prayer sent directly to God. It is one less chance to communicate with Him. ... It was Christ Himself who said "Who is my mother?", not me. :)

The fact of the matter is that GOD HIMSELF Willed that Mary be there - from the first miracle at Cana to the end of the Passion. She participate in the fact that she gave her will totally to God - something that Eve did not do. She clearly was the handmaiden of the Lord.

Yes, and ... God willed lots of people to do lots of good things, and lots of people were dedicated to serving the Lord, even some from birth, like Samuel. Yes, Mary participated in a huge event, of course. But I still don't see why she merits all the veneration given to her. She was a vessel called upon for a task. She said "OK". So did many others.

FK: "So, looping in what Alex has said, is Hades and Limbo the same thing? ..."

I would say no. I would say Hades no longer exists, after Christ's Redemptive Work.

I realize that as of your post, Alex isn't back yet to answer this as quickly as he might, but since his earlier post apparently supporting the concept of Limbo, I have read several posts from both Catholics and Orthodox that appear to be pouring a little cold water on the idea as something that is currently accepted today. I'm just trying to figure out if I said to my friend that Catholics believe in Limbo for unbaptized babies, what kind of ground would I be on?

FK: "From God's POV, which is what we're talking about, Christ's death was "complete" before the Incarnation, so to speak."

Sure, but God had to come into time to make it effective, correct?

That's a good way to phrase that question. "Is it effective?" Certainly, God had to come into time to make it happen "in time". But I'm not sure that means that it wasn't already effective for the OT righteous even though it hadn't happened in time from their POV. This kind of reminds me of perseverance. I think that the perseverance of the elect is "effectively" done at salvation, all that is left is for it to happen in real time, but there is no doubt whatsoever that it will. So, it is effective before it happens. I know you disagree with that so it is an interesting parallel.

[jo kus]

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.

The distinction between divine energies and divine essence is purely speculation based on the experience of monks saying the Jesus Prayer. It is a totally absent concept in the West, even before the Schism. Even in the East, there was much controversy over it until St. Palamas and the Council of Constantinople defined it for the East. I fail to see how your particular distinction brings the Latin means of identifying God (as one essesnce) into total error and makes the sacramental system magic.

"Uncreated energies" sounds too much a return to Greek Gnosticism and different levels of dieties for my taste. God is One, there isn't anything else besides God. Uncreated energies sound too much like "godlets". Being that this is based on experience rather than Apostolic Tradition, I am skeptical about the whole matter. If you feel this brings you closer to Christ, more power to you.

Regards

[HarleyD]

"...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."

I would agree with most of what you have written. Where I would disagree is with lumping "Western theology" together. As you know I would argue that there has always been differences in the Western church. From my perspective I believe the Roman Catholics follows a corrupt Orthodox view. I believe the Western church was really the Reformed view.

I would also disagree with listing original sin. I believe that is the one thing they got almost right. However, their misunderstanding of original sin is what has led them into the corrupt doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception".

[HarleyD]

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

I will agree that there were "innovations" in worship in the Protestants/Catholic split. However, there have always been innovations throughout the ages-sometimes good, sometimes not. I doubt if any church (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) can lay claim that they actually worship as the 1st century disciples.

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 an Orthodox Christian that a given Father seems to contradict Orthodox teaching, he will... show that this particular Father is out of the consensus Patrum.

To me there is not much difference and underscores a problem; how do you know that the minority view is wrong? It's extremely gentlemanly to say they're "out of consensus" but it amounts to no less then saying their wrong.

Luther seems to have seen a window of opportunity, and taken it.

I think that is a rather harsh and cynical view of Luther. He was simply following standard procedures of the order of the day. Tacking his theses onto the door was what everyone did that had a disagreement for discussion. His actions before Charles and the Church, in which he faced almost certain death, does not sound to me like a "window of opportunity".

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "I was specifically thinking in the area of discernment. Since I do not agree patently with everything that Calvin and Luther said, I cannot say that their gifts of discernment were better on every issue than "all Protestants".

I think you are confusing a gift of the Holy Spirit, discernment, with a human ability, say, knowledge and ability to read foreign languages. The two are NOT the same thing.

I agree with you that they are not the same thing. But does this mean you are saying that God might grace people differently on whether they are any good at reading foreign languages, but that God graces everyone equally with things like discernment? If so, that doesn't make sense to me. If that's true then what do bishops have that we don't have? :)

One of the "requirements" of being considered a "Church Father" was holiness. Holiness not only from the level of their writings, but in their actions. This made their writings more authoritative.

Well, since we know that even many Fathers had problems with the consensus, is holiness something that comes and goes? And assuming you say "yes", then this holiness is really only recognized through the voting process, at any particular time, right?

[blue-duncan]

"One of the "requirements" of being considered a "Church Father" was holiness"

Holiness, are we all in agreement as to the definition of the term? Can we define it or is it like Justice Stewart's definition, " . . . I know it [obscenity/pornography] when I see it."

[Agrarian]

"Is it correct then, that the Orthodox view is that there is no predestination of any kind?"

There are several sections in St. John of Damascus that address the question of predestination, God's providence and ordering of the universe, etc... If I have time this evening, I'll pull them out and post them. They are particularly interesting because they were written before the Schism -- and many centuries before the wars of words after and during the Reformation.

[Agrarian]

"I think that is a rather harsh and cynical view of Luther."

I don't see how it can be considered to be a harsh and cynical view to say that what began as a concern over something that pretty much everyone knew was wrong (the sale of indulgences) quickly expanded to a very radical change in virtually every aspect of Catholic theology.

I'm not defending medieval Catholic theology. I'm just saying that if one wants to defend Luther, one must defend most of what he changed or tried to change, and not just keep drumming on the sale of indulgences -- something that is non-controversial in the extreme.

[jo kus]

But does this mean you are saying that God might grace people differently on whether they are any good at reading foreign languages, but that God graces everyone equally with things like discernment? If so, that doesn't make sense to me. If that's true then what do bishops have that we don't have? :)

We Catholics believe that God works similiarly on the natural and supernatural plane. This goes back to our concept of Sacramentalism. If you want to understand Catholicism, you must understand this term. It means that God works invisibly through the visible creation. Thus, when God directed the Apostles to baptize, they used WATER, not mud or wine. When a person SEES a baptism, it is supposed to call to mind, through a visible action, what God is doing in the spiritual realm - cleansing someone in this case.

With this in mind, FK, God works at giving spiritual AND natural gifts on different levels to different people. Thus, some people, He makes naturally smart - but perhaps, their spiritual knowledge of God is lacking. To some, He gives certain spiritual gifts, to others, He doesn't - just as in the natural world.

What do the bishops have that we don't have? God has place people in authority over other men. Whether this is in the secular world or in the spiritual, we are called by God to obey them. Remember what Christ said to Pilate? "You wouldn't have any authority over me unless give from Above"? Thus, the Bishops claim to have been given this authority, the power to bind and loosen. As to discernment, this would vary.

Well, since we know that even many Fathers had problems with the consensus, is holiness something that comes and goes? And assuming you say "yes", then this holiness is really only recognized through the voting process, at any particular time, right?

Holiness and knowledge are not necessarily related. You think that the holier one is, the more knowledgeable they become. On the intellectual plane, this is false. Holiness has very little to do with intellectual knowledge - and as Paul says to the Corinthians, it PUFFS UP! We grow in EXPERIENTIAL knowledge of God - but not necessarily being better able to describe the Trinity. Certainly, you are aware of people who appear quite holy to you - do you think they could fully explain the Trinity do to their "experiential" knowledge of Christ's Abiding Presence within them? God doesn't impart this type of knowledge to everyone. The knowledge He gives us is the Knowledge of our sharing in the Divine Nature, that communion of Love that exists between the Father and the Son.

Regards

[HarleyD]

I'm just saying that if one wants to defend Luther, one must defend most of what he changed or tried to change, and not just keep drumming on the sale of indulgences -- something that is non-controversial in the extreme.

Indulgences was only the external example to an internal doctrinal problem; works verses faith. The Church had reached such a point that examining relics, paying money and pilgrimages would lessen your stay in purgatory. There is no basis for any of this in scripture as Luther discovered. Man isn't saved based upon pilgrimages or relics. Man is saved by his faith in our Lord Jesus.

And where does staying in purgatory pop up? In some obscured verse in the Apocrypha that the early church fathers agreed was only a historical document. Sorry, but I think there is sufficient evidence of a corrupted theological system-and I'm not saying this simply because I'm a rabid Protestant. The Church had totally lost its focus on God's grace.

You may say that wiser men throughout the ages made "reasonable" assumptions based upon their interpretation which the majority of people agreed with. I would say the majority was in error based upon flawed interpretations developed based upon their environment at the time. Error compounded upon error warped God's Holy word until He brought about the appropriate situation.

[wmfights]

"Well, there is lots of "knowledge" that is called Apostolic Tradition. I do trust that which was later written down in the Bible. Writings after that have to pass the same test that any other teaching has to pass unto this day and forward. I cannot trust later writers automatically based only on their say so and their "pedigree"."
_____________________________

I couldn't agree more!

Over an over again we are told to rely on the written WORD. The Berean's in Acts 17:11 "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the SCRIPTURES every day to see if what Paul said was true."
In this case I think we are being told to not only rely on the written WORD but to also hold church leaders accountable to not teach false doctrine.

I think an even more powerful example of how important it is to trust SCRIPTURE ALONE is found in Matthew 15: 6-9 "Thus you nullify the WORD of GOD for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isiah was right when he prophesied about you:
These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men."

I think most of the controversial practices in the Roman Catholic Church can be traced to their "Tradition."

[jo kus]

You wrote : I do not believe the RCC is God or speaks for God. Therefore, I cannot obey the RCC. I obey God and His word MYSELF instead of the RCC.

Ah, that makes more sense...

"He who rejects you (apostles) rejects Me (Jesus) and the One who sent Me." Luke 10:16

Where we disagree, you are rejecting the Apostle's teachings found in their writings...

For example:

FK: The written Word of God provides the sole authority for Christians...

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 2 Thes 2:15. Nowhere does the BIBLE abrogate oral teachings.

FK: My interpretation of the Bible is my sole source of authority

"even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?" Romans 10:14-15

Which Protestant was sent by the Apostles?

FK: I am eternally saved and of the elect and cannot fall away

"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." 2 Peter 2:20-22

FK: Man is saved by faith alone

What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith [alone] save him?" James 2:14

FK: Baptism does not remit sins.

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38

FK The Bible is the Word of God because the Word of God is the Bible

Circular argument. Individual books of the Bible do not call themselves Scripture. Rejecting the role of the Church in forming the Canon places you in another logical conundrum.

Is there a need to continue?

You say that you use the Scripture as your source of authority, but above, it is clear that it is YOUR INTERPRETATION that you follow, not the Scriptures' clear rejection of some of your preformed ideas. Really, I don't see any point in pursuing these arguments. I have spent enough of my time already going in circles with you...

God Bless