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

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

[stripes1776]

kosta's post: The very fact that the Church established Orthodox Christology based on two natures of Christ, and two wills or energies, is proof positivie that +Gregory Palamas was not proposing something new, but something that was known to the Church from the beginning.

I think that is one of the important points in this discussion. The question is really: what is the relation between the created and the uncreated? Or more specifically, how do you maintain the transcendence of God and yet acknowledge his revelation and involvement in history?

Communion with creation--even a divine creation--cannot save or deify man and the world. The creature man can only experience salvation or deification--eternal life--through communion with the uncreated. Hence the idea of uncreated energies--the relation of the Holy Trinity to creation. And by distinguishing between uncreated energies and essence, God's transcendence and mystery are preserved.

Anyway, that is my reading of Palamis, and I think his theological language many help as now Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox are all talking to each other.

[Forest Keeper]

[On Baptism being 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

My argument is that the remission of sins refers to the repentance, not the baptism. However, I can understand how you could take it the other way. Now, for further clarification, we look to different sources. You look to Tradition and I look to other scripture. If your hierarchy's position is correct then it appears that Peter and Paul had drastically different ideas about the meaning of Baptism:

1 Cor. 1:14-17 : 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel;not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

According to Paul, Christ DID NOT send him to baptize. So, Paul must have believed that Christ sent him to preach the Gospel and make believers who were all going to hell because their sins were not remitted? Somehow, I find this hard to believe. If Baptism is SOOOOO crucial to salvation, then how can Paul not even remember whether or when he had baptized?

If Paul held the Catholic view, then he purposely left hundreds or thousands of people dangling over hell because he did not want to risk their misunderstanding about in whose name to be baptized. No, Paul reasoned that it would be better to let them all walk around fully guilty in their sins before God, even though they were believers. I can't buy it. This makes no sense if baptism really means what your hierarchy says it does.

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.

Becoming a child of God is very important to me as well. I look to passages like this one for guidance:

John 1:12-13 : 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

God's children, those who are born of God, are NOT those who are baptized, they are those who believe in His name. This is being born again, to believe.

[continuing:] "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

This supports baptism for the remission of sins??? Let's look at the very next verse:

Rom. 6:5 : If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

So now we know that anyone who is baptized is saved and will rise to have eternal life in heaven. So much for cooperation, so much for free will, so much for sanctification, so much for the sacraments. I will admit this is a much easier ticket this way. :) OTOH, PERHAPS Paul is talking about the Baptism of the Spirit, which ONLY happens to believers.

FK: "... Paul says that he received the Gospel directly from Christ, not from any man, ..."

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.

Yes, the Gospel is from God. We are talking about how Paul learned it. Let's see the actual passage:

Gal. 1:11-12 : 11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

That seems to cut out the other Apostles as sources for Paul's learning, does it not?

[FK on the assertion that Mary's sinlessness is not mentioned in the Bible because it was uncontroversial and everyone already knew it, therefore, no need to clarify with a mention in scripture:] "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?"

... 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 have no problem with people respecting her highly, but "most popular". She sounds like she would have made a good Beatle. :) How could Mary possibly have been more popular among Christians than the Apostles themselves, who did all the teaching and preaching? If the sinless part came after the first generation, do you see any possibility for legend-building here?

[Forest Keeper]

Agrarian as quoted by FK: "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 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 ... show that this particular Father is out of the consensus Patrum."

Harley: "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."

I agree with you Harley. I don't see much difference either, all of these are different ways of saying the other one is wrong. I like your point about the minority view, after all, didn't all three of the faiths start out in the minority? :)

I was wondering if Agrarian's comparison might have been a little broader. I was thinking about the difference between "Magesterium" and "Consensus Patrum". Agrarian, did you mean "Sacred Magesterium", denoting only the Pope, and his loyal bishops? If so, that would be an important distinction to make, it seems to me, between that and the Consensus Patrum.

All of this reminds me of a way I think Protestants are closer to the Orthodox than with Catholicism. Agrarian has written eloquently about how the Orthodox "look back to move forward" (my paraphrase). I see Protestantism, especially the Reformers, as being like this too. Whenever we Reformers are faced with anything new, where do we look first and always? We go back to the beginning, to the Bible. The Orthodox go back to the beginning also.

So, I guess what I'm getting at is when we face new questions in our culture such as "What does God think of human cloning, or sex-selection, or whether to disobey man's laws concerning hiding illegal aliens, etc.?", the approaches are more similar among the Protestants and the Orthodox, in my opinion. We would go back to the beginning to find the answer, whereas the Catholics might try to adapt to current circumstances, eventually culminating in a Vatican III.

[Forest Keeper]

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."

That's a good point. I don't know how the Church determined whether potential Fathers were holy. I suppose I just assumed it was decided by a vote. Joe, were there any visible yardsticks to determine someone's holiness?

[HarleyD]

All of this reminds me of a way I think Protestants are closer to the Orthodox than with Catholicism. Agrarian has written eloquently about how the Orthodox "look back to move forward" (my paraphrase). I see Protestantism, especially the Reformers, as being like this too.

Excellent observation. This is precisely how I see it and have stated so to our Orthodox friends. I believe there are only two views; the Orthodox and the Reformed view. Everything else is a variation of one of these views. While I might disagree with our Orthodox brethren, I feel "closer" to our Orthodox friends simply because I feel they hold the other "legitimate" view.

[Forest Keeper]

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. ... -- Thus, the Bishops claim to have been given this authority, the power to bind and loosen. As to discernment, this would vary.

OK, so spiritual and natural gifts do vary among all humans. The difference with priests and bishops is in the authority granted, not the gifts? So, a layman could actually have "better" spiritual gifts than a priest or bishop?

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.

No, I don't think that. I know people who couldn't begin to attempt to post on a thread like this whose holiness, only by my personal perception, I admire and strive to achieve. I know that difference. And I know that knowledge is not a bad thing either. I think for some people, knowledge really helps for becoming more holy because of an innate thirst that comes from God and wants to be met. Once that particular mind is fed what it needs spiritually, sanctification and holiness can proceed. I see nothing wrong with this.

For other people, they can more easily rest in truths without exhaustive examination and questioning. Good for them too. :) It all depends on how the model was built, and the beauty is that God will provide just what is needed in every case for a believer.

[Forest Keeper]

In this case [Acts 17:11] 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.

Yes, absolutely. All fallible humans must always be held accountable for their teachings as they stand (or do not) against scripture. My pastor has said many times, in effect, that he would WANT us to throw him out on his ear if he ever started teaching in contradiction to scripture. :)

I think an even more powerful example of how important it is to trust SCRIPTURE ALONE is found in Matthew 15: 6-9

I think I know what our Catholic friends would say about this, :) but I am fully with you that this is one of many, many passages that supports looking to the written word first. We would say look to it only.

[kosta50]

My argument is that the remission of sins refers to the repentance, not the baptism

There are many definitions of baptism in the NT, which is no small source of confusion. Baptism is, however, a remission of sins no matter how you look at it — whether it is "washing of" sins, "whether it is "dying and resurrecting" into a new life (covenant with God), whether it is justification and conversion (and talking in tongues) by the Spirit, whether it is by repentance (and absolution), whether it is simple "adoption" of the soul by God, etc. — in every case it is an act of God that is wholly independent of our intellect, maturity, worldly righteousness, or anything else that we are or can be, anything else that we do or can do, anything that we can think or wish. It is a will of God, a gift, that mysteriously (sacramentally) establishes our relationship with God. It is a mystery no matter how you look at it, and cannot earn it or "qualify" for it.

Just because we perform an act (immersion, pouring, reciting) does not of itself guarantee it, and it does not make it real or even manifest to our senses. We do not see the Spirit descending, we do not hear God's voice "through the clouds" a nd we do not get a "certificate" signed by God that now, indeed, with our act of repentance, washing, praying, etc. God has adopted us. We believe that God in His mercy does. So your repentance is no more a guarantee that God now accept you than the "empty" sacraments of the Apostolic Church because God is not subject to your intellectual acceptance (or rejection) of Him — God is the way He is whether we believe, disbelieve, know or don't know: He pardons whomever He wills.

So, the ceremonies, whether by water or by profession of Sinner's Prayer, are not "works" by which we earn or rate acceptance by God, but are mere petitions in good faith by the believers that He accept us. Obviously, faith in God is needed to make the petition to God, but it does not mean that a soul being baptized must also believe and profess Gospel; only those making that petition. We can petition God to accept and have mercy on any soul, whether intellectually mature or mentally handicapped.

Thus, we place our faith in the prayers of the Church as petitions of the faithful which does not require the soul being baptized to be intellectually mature. However, in your case, the Protestants place a precondition on God's ability to accept us, based on our intellectual maturity! Not only is God forced to wait for us to grow up, but is actually forced to wait for us to repent to give us a chance! Talk about making God subject to necessity!

So, when you look at things outside the box, you begin to see that your rituals and your tradition are exactly what you criticize in others, and then some.

[Forest Keeper]

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

We both believe that of each other. I just didn't know that the Apostles were also Navajo Code Talkers. :) They must have been based on the interpretations of scriptures I have heard here. You are using it even now in your paraphrasing of me in your post.

Nowhere does the BIBLE abrogate oral teachings.

And no where did I ever say it did. If an oral teaching is consistent with scripture and does not add any contradictory teaching, then I am likely to be fine with it. I have maintained this all along.

"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?

By today's standards, which Roman Catholic was sent by the Apostles? :) There really is no way to answer either question with reasonable certainty.

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

[On 2 Peter 2:20-22 as a refutation of FK's claim to being of the elect, and God's promise that the elect will not be lost:] Hmmm. What do you suppose the entire second chapter is about in 2 Peter? How about FALSE TEACHERS? None of these ever had true faith to begin with, as is clear in the text.

[Forest Keeper]

IMHO, I think Evangelical Christians are concerned about this "lofty" status accorded Mary and special supernatural powers accorded her by Roman Catholics is that it is a product of "Tradition" and not SCRIPTURE.

Yes, there can be no doubt this is true. They will tell you openly that things like Mary's sinlessness, her ever-virginity, and her worthiness of being venerated more than any other human in history are extra-scriptural Tradition. They believe that this Tradition is equal to scripture in truth AND authority. Also equal to them both in authority is the Magesterium (the people who occupy the hierarchy of the Church, mostly the Pope).

[kosta50]

Romans 6:5...

"Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus." [Rom 6:11]

Tell me, FK, are you dead to sin? Are you prepared to declare that you no longer sin? If not, then I say to you that you have not been saved, not yet anyway, because until you are dead to sin (theosis) and sin no more, you cannot be alive in Christ.

And if you are like most of us, you can only hope, by honestly cleaving to God as best as you can all your life, even if you honestly fail, that God will have mercy on us and save us in the end.

Being dead to sin does not require intellect or belief. Mentally retarded, infants and children are all dead to sin, without knowing or professing Jesus Christ as their God.

[HarleyD]

However, in your case, the Protestants place a precondition on God's ability to accept us, based on our intellectual maturity!

Just a slight correction...while some Protestant faiths have morphed into "taking a leap of faith" this is not the true Reformed view. The Reformers believe that the promises of God are written in His holy scriptures. We do not rest on anything other than what God has stated. Thus, when God has stated, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved." this is a promise by which we trust God. Likewise when our Lord Jesus states that no one will snatch us out of His hands, we trust God that He will keep His word. We know His Spirit endwells us simply because He has stated so in His inspired word.

Num 23:19 God is not a man that He should lie, neither the son of man that He should repent. Has He said, and shall He not do it? Or has He spoken, and shall He not make it good?

I will add that while the Reformed belief rests solely upon God's promise, every other belief feels that one has to do something whether it is being baptized, doing charitable things, or taking a "leap of faith". They all boil down to the same thing-something man has to do. Likewise, if I "feel" the Lord leading me to buy a Cadillac rather than a Ford, I will be sorely disappointed not to find it in the written word.

Reformed Protestants rests upon the promises of God.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "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. ..."

Hogwash. Both of you [FK and WMF] do this everyday. Does this mean you detract anything from God?

YES, absolutely! For whatever reason, your hierarchy has instructed you that at times it is BETTER to pray for intervention from a saint than it is to pray directly to God. You have likened the prayer for intervention by a saint to asking a friend here on earth for prayer, but they are not the same at all. When I ask my friend I do not have my eyes closed and I am not in a prayerful mindset at that moment, I am usually either in casual conversation or I am participating in a time of prayer requests in preparation of being in a prayerful mindset. This is not my observance of Catholics when they "pray" for intervention.

The Bible teaches us that we are always to be in a prayerful mindset, although none of us can do it. Therefore, for whatever such moments any of us can muster, it is a fact that Catholics spend many of them directed away from God and towards dead people. Protestants spend EVERY such moment towards God. That is a big difference.

Any glory given to Mary is glory given to God - as she herself gives credit to. It is a disconnect of our everyday lives that confuses you both to make such an accusation. We understand that Mary is not a "god", but a creation, so anything we say about her reflects in her creator. Don't be afraid to joyfully praise God's greatest creation.

If any glory given to Mary is a glory given to God, then the same can be said for all the Apostles, or all the OT righteous, or all the saints, right??? In fact, by this logic, there really is no need to actually give any glory to God because He just scoops it all up in the glory we give to others, is that it? This is unbelievable. :) Why does Catholicism have SO MUCH FOCUS away from God and toward man?

Mary is God's greatest creation? Why am I not surprised that you think Mary is more important than Heaven? :)

[Forest Keeper]

[On cremation:] For the record, the Catholic Church disallows any disposal of the body that is intentionally done as a symbolic denial of the resurrection of the body. Such are all the dispersal methods. ... At the same time, cremation in itself is allowed.

Together, these two ideas imply to me that there are some people out there who actively destroy the body FOR THE PURPOSE of symbolically denying the resurrection. Is that true? BTW, what are other dispersal methods that are not covered by burial (land, sea) or cremation? I would assume that medical cadavers eventually meet one of these ends, etc.

[wmfights]

"But if one had been born and raised into an Apostolic faith, then I can imagine it being pretty tough to work up the moxie to publicly dissent."
___________________________

FWIW, especially after that church became a part of the State and dissension would be considered not only heresy but treason.

[Forest Keeper]

[From "Whether children should be baptized?"] But our Lord Himself said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam so in a second birth they might obtain salvation through Christ.

Well, my version does not use the word "again" until verse 7. Here is the KJV:

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

This is a pretty big difference, as your version strongly implies that being born again is both by water and of the Spirit. Neither my, nor the KJV version share that conclusion at all. Ours say clearly that there are two births, one of "water", whatever that means, and two, of the Spirit. I don't know what version you're using. ... The "Consequently" drawn by the author was clearly made with a foregone conclusion in mind. So, IF 10 assumptions are taken as true, then I suppose the "consequently" would follow.

The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism is somewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while in the mother's womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church.

I know these are not your words, but "salvation ... by the act of the Church". This is the stuff of one of the meanest things I could say to you, and yet New Advent proclaims it openly. :) I don't get it.

P.S. I'm sorry you didn't get to the beach, and it's good to have you back. :) I'm going to be road-tripping myself (Orlando) in about two weeks, so we'll see what kind of luck I have beach-wise. If you were sharing the gospel with hippos in San Diego, then for sure they were Republican hippos. Since they live so close to the border, I would be interested in their take on the House and Senate immigration bills currently headed for conference. Do San Diego hippos believe in amnesty? :)

[wmfights]

"Imagine Albert Pujols, of the 2006 World Champion St. Louis Cardinals,..."
___________________________

Ain't gonna happen. They have no competition in the NL and will be "coasting" when the playoffs start. The Chicago White Sox will repeat because they will have to be at the top of their game just to make the playoffs.

[kosta50]

We do not rest on anything other than what God has stated...[and not] that one has to do something whether it is being baptized, doing charitable things, or taking a "leap of faith"

As in "Baptize therefore in the name of the Ftaher, the Sin ad the Holy Ghost?"

[Forest Keeper]

This is why Cathollics read the awful in all but ease of reading NAB and profit from it, -- because they know that the ultimate truth of the scripture is in the mind of the Church, and the NAB is but a reflection of it.

This is interesting to me because even at this point in the thread I could not have told you what version of the Bible the average Catholic reads. So it's the New American? I have heard of it, but I know nothing about it. What is the approach it takes, and what version do you prefer?

Combined with the notion that the NIV is The Only Scripture Beyond Which There Is Nothing But Evil Popery the end result is worse than if no scripture reading were attempted.

LOL! Well, I hope that no fellow NIV reader has really given you that impression. :) I do not believe that the NIV is the ONLY version. In fact, I have gotten quite an education from folks from every side on this thread that the KJV is really the way to go on many levels. I'm still looking into it, but every time I have cross-referrenced it recently, I have not met with any surprises, so that's good.

[wmfights]

"How could Mary possibly have been more popular among Christians than the Apostles themselves, who did all the teaching and preaching? If the sinless part came after the first generation, do you see any possibility for legend-building here?"
___________________________

If Mary was indeed so much more than the vessel the LORD used to be among us why is no SCRIPTURE attributed to her?