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

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

[kosta50]

I'm talking about those beliefs where there is considerable disagreement, like original sin, that has been established from the "chair of Peter"

The Orthodox Church does not deny the original (ancestral) sin — the sin of Adam and Eve. The Orthodox Church, and I believe the Roman Catholic Church, believes that we do not inherit their sin (i.e. guilt) but only propensity to sin — a defective nature that tends to sin as a result of ancestral sin.

I believe St. Augustine's choice of words the, "original sin," was an unfortunate mistake because it serves as the basis for the Reformed theology of total depravity which the Church never taught. Again, only the fallen angels are dead in sin; there is no salvation for them.

If every local Orthodox church is free to formulate their own local doctrinal position, as has been stated, you could have far more than 33,000 different "Churches" each running around saying all sorts of things

I am not sure where this comes from, perhaps something Kolokotronis wrote but I am sure he will be the first to correct himself by saying that this is not true. Church Fathers were free to hypothesize and propose qeologoumena [theologoumena], or "religious opinion," which in no way represent Church doctrine. If you want to know what the Church doctrine is read the Ecumenical Councils. If it was not proclaimed by a Council it is not the doctrine of the entire Church.

Individual Churches may have certain theological ideas, for example, the Russian toll-houses which are faintly reminiscent of the Purgatory, and not shared by other Orthodox Churches, but all Orthodox Churches believe that the soul of the departed is subjected to an "interim period" of waiting, knowing that it is destined either to hell or to bliss, without going into speculative details of this "place" where the souls are.

So, to say outright that the Purgatory is wrong is wrong, but we can question the details of the Latin teaching, as we question the teaching of "transubstantiation" yet we at no time doubt that it expresses the very same faith we hold — that the bread and wine do become the Body and Blood of Christ; as to how this happens, the Orthodox simply leave it to that favorite of yours, a "Mystery of God".

Luther held a low view of James, just like many of the Church such as Eusebius and Jerome

The devil is in the details, HD. Why did they hold such a low view of an Apostle (the book of James was not a disputed book to the best of my knowledge); what were their reasons. With Luther, it clashed directly with his entire theology of a "dead faith."

[kosta50]

I would hope so. Needless to say, I enjoyed the experience of the Antiochan Church. I have been told by other people that some Antiochan churches (such as the one in Jackson) have pews and when you have pews people tend to kneel and sit. It is an extremely common particularly in Greek churches in America (I have yet to see one American Greek orthodox church that doesn't have pews and where kneeling is avoided).

In fact a few weeks ago, I was in Orlando in a beautiful and very upscale Greek Orthodox Church (the Holy Trinity, right off Interstate 4), and a visiting priest from Greece was reminding everyone that kneeling, especially during the 40 days after the resurrection is strictly prohibited.

I spoke with him after the Divine Liturgy and mentioned the First Ecumenical Council and he said "You are absolutely right! In my part of Greece, no one kneels, but in some they do, an we have to teach them not to, just like here."

Again, a church is our spiritual home, not a theater where we go to watch a performance, so pews are not the proper thing to have in a church. We are supposed to stand in awe. That element of "performance" is what resulted in the early Latin deviation in the reception of the Eucharist for the clergy only at one point in time.

[stripes1776]

The Orthodox Church does not deny the original (ancestral) sin — the sin of Adam and Eve. The Orthodox Church, and I believe the Roman Catholic Church, believes that we do not inherit their sin (i.e. guilt) but only propensity to sin — a defective nature that tends to sin as a result of ancestral sin.

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches original sin, that is to say we are guilty for what Adam and Eve did. If that isn't the case, I am sure a Catholic on the thread will correct that statement.

I believe St. Augustine's choice of words the, "original sin," was an unfortunate mistake because it serves as the basis for the Reformed theology of total depravity which the Church never taught. Again, only the fallen angels are dead in sin; there is no salvation for them.

The vast majority of Protestants do believe in original sin, but not total depravity. A belief in total depravity does not follow necessarily from the idea of original sin. Calvinist-Reformed thinking did go in that direction, but the vast majority of Protestants are not Reformed.

[stripes1776]

I meant to ping you on post 7,783. No doubt the Catholic position on original sin has been dealt with many times on this thread, but a repetition would be helpful. Sometimes you have to hear something many times before you are able to listen to it.

[jo kus]

In the Orthodox Liturgy (as it used to be in the Latin as well), the Cathecumens are asked to leave after the readings of the Gospels (The doors! The doors!"). Of course, they don't have to leave as they used to, but sometimes stay for the Eucharistic part of the service, but they cannot partake of the of the Eucharist.

We still do that! Right after the homily, before the recitation of the Creed, the catechumens are dismissed to "break open the Word" that had just been proclaimed. I am particularly strict on making sure that the catechumens do not witness the Mystery of the Eucharist until after Easter Vigil. With all they have learned about the Eucharist, they are HUNGRY for it by then!

Regards

[kosta50]

The vast majority of Protestants do believe in original sin, but not total depravity. A belief in total depravity does not follow necessarily from the idea of original sin. Calvinist-Reformed thinking did go in that direction, but the vast majority of Protestants are not Reformed

I am becoming very much aware of the heterodoxy in the Protestant community, which is why I wrote "Reformed" but maybe should have been more specific, i.e. Calvinist or TULIP.

So do all Protestants consider themselves "Reformed?"

[jo kus]

You totally misread Luther's statement. It's no different than Augustine's statement, "Love God, and do what you want." But then, you guys don't like Augustine either.

Are you talking to me or Kolo? St. Augustine was quite Catholic if you bothered to read beyond "Nature and Grace" and things refering only to grace/free will and predestination.

Luther held a low view of James

That's an understatement. Didn't he call it a "epistle of straw" and "throw Jimmie in the river" or "burn him in the stove fire"? Funny way of refering to the Divine Word of God...

Regards

[HarleyD]

Calvinist-Reformed thinking did go in that direction, but the vast majority of Protestants are not Reformed.

Just a slight correction. From history most Protestants were Reformed. Over time (it wasn't long) heresy crept in with Joseph Arminius and his free will views. The TULIP was developed to counteract the heresy of the Remonstrant which mirrors Catholic doctrine.

To answer kosta question, no, most of Protestants today are not Reformed. There are precious few Protestants that are Reformed holding more of a Catholic version of man's free will.

[kosta50]

We still do that! Right after the homily, before the recitation of the Creed, the catechumens are dismissed to "break open the Word" that had just been proclaimed

Oh, jo, I stand corrected! Thank you. I guess some of the cnfusion comes from the fact that you have "high" and "low" Mass (whereas we have Vespers in lieu of "low" Liturgy, and the RCC no longer has Vespers, or is that another mistaken impression?), and that we usually don't see the incense, and the works in the Catholic churches in daily Mass.

But doesn't this also depend on the type of parish, i.e. traditional versus "liberal?" I would imagine the Mass is uniform no matter where it is served.

[kosta50]

To answer kosta question, no, most of Protestants today are not Reformed. There are precious few Protestants that are Reformed holding more of a Catholic version of man's free will

Why, thank you, HD. This is the type of information that is useful for us outside of the community. It helps us understand the differences and even "heresy" among Protestants.

[Titanites]

I attended Vespers Saturday evening.

[stripes1776]

So do all Protestants consider themselves "Reformed?"

The language can be confusing. Reformed has come to mean Calvinist. The majority of Protestants do not consider themselves "Reformed."

As to the teaching of original sin, it is in the Roman Catholic catechism. The U.S. Catholic Bishops have a website that has an explanation of their teaching on the subject here. After reading through the page, I would say the Catholic teaching is what the majority of non-Reformed Protestants believe.

[monkfan]

I would hope so. Needless to say, I enjoyed the experience of the Antiochan Church. I have been told by other people that some Antiochan churches (such as the one in Jackson) have pews and when you have pews people tend to kneel and sit. It is an extremely common particularly in Greek churches in America (I have yet to see one American Greek orthodox church that doesn't have pews and where kneeling is avoided).

At my parish, we don't have pews but we do have folding chairs. Don't ask me why. I like standing. But, sadly, I think the whole pew phenomenon is likely here to stay. As for the kneeling, I've only ever seen it on a Sunday once by a visitor, back when I was a catechumen. I shrugged it off as some kind of Romanian thing. :/

In fact a few weeks ago, I was in Orlando in a beautiful and very upscale Greek Orthodox Church (the Holy Trinity, right off Interstate 4), and a visiting priest from Greece was reminding everyone that kneeling, especially during the 40 days after the resurrection is strictly prohibited.

We actually print that in the bulliten. No kneeling until after Pentacost. I remember when I first read that. My very next thought was, "get ready to kneel after Pentacost." At the time, I had no idea just how right I was. Hello Kneeling Vespers!

[stripes1776]

Just a slight correction. From history most Protestants were Reformed.

Whatever beliefs Luther and Calvin may have shared, they also differed in many respects. Luther called himself and his followers Evangelicals. I don't believe Calvin could ever be mistaken for an Evangelical Lutheran.

Over time (it wasn't long) heresy crept in with Joseph Arminius and his free will views. The TULIP was developed to counteract the heresy of the Remonstrant which mirrors Catholic doctrine.

You are correct that there is some significant overlap between what most Protestants believe and Catholics believe on certain issues. As for the idea of free will, many Protestants looked at the issue and ended up agreeing with the Catholics on this issue rather than Calvin. They didn't read Arminius first and then conclude that he was right. Arminius was simply the first we have a record of who came to this conclusion, so his name is used to describe this position among Protestants.

There are precious few Protestants that are Reformed holding more of a Catholic version of man's free will.

We all write quickly on these discussion boards without editing. You may want to rephrase that sentence because I think you said the opposite of what you wanted to say.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

God doesn't save us unless we also become like Him by loving others.

Thank God my salvation does not depend on my ability (or inability) to do anything, but only upon the finished work of Christ upon the cross.

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins...

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)...

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Not of works, lest any man should boast.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:1;4-5;8-10

"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7

God's love opens the gates of heaven to us. But we have to walk the narrow road to enter into the Kingdom.

"The nature of the Divine goodness is not only to open to those who knock, but also to cause them to knock and ask." -- AUGUSTINE

[annalex]

true Protestants-are required to "study to show ourselves approved".

Required for what? To earn your salvation, perhaps?

This whole issue of easy vs. hard is of course silly. Christ said that it is both: it is a burden, but He makes the burden light. What is that burden? -- it is the good works required for final justification, just as the scripture tells us, and just like every epistle of St. Paul tells us. For some these good works meant martyrdom; for most it is a life of charity, dying to self, regular oblations, and yes, also study.

It becomes trickier to figure out from the Protestant mindset. There, salvation is a one time event which begins the Christian life; any good works are not the product of man's free will, but rather a consequence of that mythical one-time salvation. Any sin that might occur is forgiven. The "saints" persevere much like a roller coaster car "perseveres" as it glides from top to bottom along the rail. So that is the easy part Kosta was, quite correctly, referring to. Now, we are told, there is some Herculean task involved of studying the Scripture "to show oneself approved". Work it can't be -- Protestants are not saved by works. Salvation it can't be, -- Protestants are already saved. Research it can't be, -- elementary rules of research such as linguistic and historical veracity are violated carelessly. But we agree, it is a supernaturally hard exercise. Most fools' errands are.

[kosta50]

Thank you for the info. My (OCA) church has folding chairs in the back (2 rows) but the rest is standing room only.

[kosta50]

Thank you. That answers my misconeption. :)

[blue-duncan]

"On Job being sinless] Eschewing evil pretty much means being sinless. It's actually not that rare: the term "blameless" is also used for Noah (Gen 6:9), Abraham (Gen 17:1) and in Deut. 18:13 "Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God."

I think I have it now Sheep and goats can be sinless (Lev. 22:21); weights and measures can be sinless (Dt. 25:15); dice can be sinless, but not bingo, I'm sure casinos will rest peacefully knowing this(1 Sam. 14:41); all the men of war were sinless (1Chr. 12:38); all the people of Israel were sinless (1 Chr. 29"9); gold is sinless, I won't tell my wife (2 Chr. 4:21); hatred is sinless (Ps. 139:22); days are sinless (Prov. 4:8); the bud, not THE BUD, the cool one, is sinless (Isa. 18:5) and finally beauty is sinless, that I will tell my wife and get a hot meal tonight (Ezek. 27:3,11,12).

I bet you didn't know how much of creation was not subject to the fall. I especially like that dice thing. All sorts of possibilities open for the church with that, especially if we can pick and choose the definition of perfect and then contextualize or use a "dynamic" translation technique to bring it current.

[annalex]

this "humility" in prayer thing has completely lost me

Ever read "do not use the name of God in vain"? It enriches one's life to have petitions that are, perhaps, trivial in the grand scheme of things. For these daily tasks we ask the assistance of saints. Usually, humility (and the scripture) forbids asking Jesus for it.

And if you don't think kids take away time from your wife, then, as an experiment, send them off to camp

Is it your suggestion that one should lay off praying to saints every once in a while and concentrate on Jesus in isolation from His Church, in the same sense in which it is helpful to send the kids off to camp once in a while, and devote all the available time to one's wife? Perhaps, and some couples do that, although quite often one finds that they miss the kids the first-second day. But this is not an argument against praying to saints in principle. Or are you saying that I should give my children up for adoption in order to better love my wife? That would be analogous to the what Protestantism suggests we should do; but to give up my children would be a betrayal of my wife, and giving up the Communion of Saints would likewise be a betrayal of Christ.