[HarleyD]

A rather long but interesting read.

[HarleyD]

Pinging you on this New Year Day.

There is nothing as more important as understanding God's sovereignty in our salvation as this article points out.

[Forest Keeper]

Because God is sovereign in salvation, His grace cannot be resisted. Erasmus says that the reason some do not believe is because they reject the grace which God has given to them. Luther implies that God does not show grace to all men. Instead, He saves and shows favor only to those who are His children. In them, God of necessity, efficaciously accomplishes His purpose.

Thank you HarleyD for posting such a wonderful article. I was blessed enough to have a mentor in my church who taught me many of the beliefs I have now, and which you correctly pointed out to me were reformed beliefs, even though I didn't know there was a name for it at the time. :)

However, he also taught that "God reveals himself to all men", and that in cases where earthly death occurs to a young child (or an abortion victim), or to one who has no capacity to "accept" Christ, that there is a "free pass" (my words) to salvation. These ideas seem to contradict the teaching of the article and I wanted to ask you both for your thoughts. As harsh at it might seem to us humans, I don't see how the teaching allows for any exceptions, even for those who have not yet sinned.

[bornacatholic]

At the time of the Reformation, many hoped Martin Luther and Erasmus could unite against the errors of the Roman Catholic Church

*As so many of the protestants posts begin, this one begins by atacking the Church Jesus establishd. The unacknowledged subtext is Jesus established a Church that teaches error.

That is a blasphemous absurdity.

[kosta50]

Luther was a slave to sin and he built an entire theology around it: a misbehaved child who expects to be saved by Big Daddy without having to unshackle his bondage with sin. Hence his famous "pecca fortiter..." -- a formula that one can be a slave to sin and be saved. The one thing Luther did not know is that God is Love, and Love does not impose itself.

We do not get saved for sinning boldly and believing, but by repentance -- metanoia, i.e. changing our mind -- through love and desire for God that transforms us, slowly as it may, into the likeness of Christ.

God only gives blessings. It's up to us to actively accept them, and it's our decision what to do with them. We are under no obligation to choose or reject God's blessings. That in itself does not make us gods. It is a gift that God gave us, so that we may -- not must -- love Him back.

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."(Mat 6:33)

To seek is to search willingly. Maybe one day all the Reformed Christians will come to that realization, but I doubt it.

[Ironfocus]

Ping to self.

[sauropod]

Thanks for posting this.

Mark for further study.

[SmithL]

A little light reading.

[AlbionGirl]

This looks very interesting, and will take me a little while to fully read and absorb.

But for starters, how can this author make the following statement without some serious back up documentation, proving this or at the very least lending serious weight to the contention:

Erasmus was a Renaissance rationalist who placed reason above Scripture. Therefore the truth of Scripture was not that important to him.

If this is elaborated on further on in the piece, please disregard the question.

[Dahlseide]

May this truth which Martin Luther defended, the truth of the sovereignty of God in salvation, be preserved in the church

It will be no doubt at all because it was spelled with a small "c"; that means it refers to the body of Christ (Eph 1)

I see a remarkable parallel between the circumstances Paul faced in the transition era to the new covenant; & those Luther & other reformers faced at that transitional period in history that has been marked by historians as the beginning of the reformation.

[Cronos]

But a great chasm separated these two men. Luther loved the truth of God's Word as that was revealed to him through his own struggles with the assurance of salvation. Therefore Luther wanted true reformation in the church, which would be a reformation in doctrine and practice. Erasmus cared little about a right knowledge of truth. He simply wanted moral reform in the Roman Catholic Church. He did not want to leave the church, but remained supportive of the Pope.

I think Erasmus was more in love with God's word. Luther's philosophy is ranked with early heresies. The proof of the pudding is that when the Protestants tried to enlist the Orthodox Church to their side, the Patriarch declined, considering that the teachings were too heretical for the Orthodox to show any support, no matter WHAT their (the Orthodox's) own disagreements with the Catholic church were.

[Cronos]

The very article reeks of spitefulness, starting with sentences like This fundamental difference points out another difference between the two men. Martin Luther was bound by the Word of God. Therefore the content of the Scripture was of utmost importance to him. But Erasmus did not hold to this same high view of Scripture. Erasmus was a Renaissance rationalist who placed reason above Scripture. Therefore the truth of Scripture was not that important to him.

-- the protesters were hell-bent on destroying the Church and condemned everyone who didn't agree with them as not religious.

[MHGinTN]

Odd: "Man is wholly evil, thinking nothing but evil thoughts. Therefore there is no free-will." Is it not antithetical to Evil that one turns the fallen will toward God's Grace in Christ? Such an act is not Evil thus the premise rests upon a fundamental flaw in reasoning ...

[Ciexyz]

bump for further study.

[aberaussie]

bttt

[aruanan]

This fundamental difference points out another difference between the two men. Martin Luther was bound by the Word of God. Therefore the content of the Scripture was of utmost importance to him. But Erasmus did not hold to this same high view of Scripture. Erasmus was a Renaissance rationalist who placed reason above Scripture. Therefore the truth of Scripture was not that important to him.

Maybe this is why the version of the Greek New Testament that he assembled and edited was seen as so bad, even by the scholars of his era (invented Greek words, back translation of portions of the Vulgate into Greek, Vulgate interpolations added into the text, etc).

He was, though, the principal force of the Alumbramiento in Spain. Many of these people, targets of the Spanish Inquisition, fled from Spain in the early days of Spanish exploration and colonization of the Americas. They tended to respect the value of labor with one's own hands (much like the monks of the Middle Ages) instead of embodying the classical Roman and Greek disparagement of physical labor and invention. They were the anti-conquistadores: businessmen and farmers. As a result, they settled areas of Latin America where the pickings for gold, etc., were poor. Since then, these areas have tended to have the most stable politics and economies over the succeeding centuries. A classic example of the difference between who settled which areas is that of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. This phenomenon was described by Mark Falcoff from the American Enterprise Institute back in the 80's.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Hmmm. I often wonder if I'm the only person to notice that Catholicism/Orthodoxy argues against Protestantism with Jewish arguments against chr*stianity . . . then turns right around and argues against Judaism with Protestant arguments against Catholicism/Orthodoxy.

[Kitty Mittens]

Magnificent Thread, HarleyD! (I Wish I could Read All the Posts!)

Soli Deo Gloria~

[AlbionGirl]

An Orthodox Priest who I became acquainted with last summer and who is good enough to include me in emails to his flock, sent me the following today. I thought it was excellent, and it certainly spoke to me, thought it might speak to you too.

What the Teaching Can Teach Us
by William Varner | posted 05/22/2006 09:30 a.m.

Not all extracanonical manuscripts reveal a 'lost Christianity.'
The church's earliest discipleship manual—the Didache—is as orthodox and relevant as it gets.

The telephone call came just after we had finished our evening meal at the Knight's Palace Hotel in the Old City of Jerusalem in May 2005. The message instructed me to come now to the library of the Greek Orthodox patriarch if I wanted to see the manuscript. I changed my clothes quickly and scurried through the labyrinthine lanes of the Old City. After entering the Greek Orthodox monastery, I made my way to the library. Soon, the librarian delivered what I had waited years to see—a 950-year-old, 200-page manuscript containing, along with a dozen other early writings, a little work only 10 pages long. Its name is the Didache (the "Teaching," pronounced "didakhay"), short for The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. While no one believes that any of the twelve apostles wrote it, scholars agree that the work is a faithful transmission of the apostles' teaching, intended primarily for the training of Gentile believers.

Why do I have such an interest in this piece of parchment, the only manuscript copy known to exist? Although scholars fiercely debate many issues about the Teaching, most agree that it was written toward the end of the first century, by an anonymous author who probably lived in the area of Syria near Antioch. The Acts of the Apostles tells us that the believers were first called Christians in Antioch. This term also appears in the Teaching.

The fact that the Didache comes from such an early period of church history should make the Teaching of interest to every believer. But, while scholars have discussed the Teaching for years, the average Christian has virtually no knowledge of this little treasure, which can be found in The Apostolic Fathers in English (Baker, 2006) edited by Michael W. Holmes. That's too bad, because this earliest of church manuals contains some instructions that may help us to "do church" today.

A Primitive Simplicity
Let me disappoint any reader who is hoping to find in the Teaching evidence of a "lost Christianity" that will forever alter our understanding of the early church (like some Da Vinci Code conspiracy). The Teaching is thoroughly orthodox in its doctrine and, hence, from its discovery and subsequent publication in 1883, it has been included among the writings known as the Apostolic Fathers. But it is not just a simple repetition of information we already have in the New Testament. The initial point of the Teaching is that we should love God and others—taken from Deuteronomy 6:5 and from Jesus' command in Matthew 22:37-39. The Didache, however, adds a form of the Golden Rule familiar to Jewish readers: "Whatever you do not wish to happen to you, do not do to another." Ancient Jewish sources record the great rabbi Hillel expressing this idea in its negative form.

Other Jewish themes, adapted to a Christian context, abound in the book. Ethical behavior is commended in the form of "two ways," a theme adapted right from the Old Testament (see Ps. 1:1-6). The Lord's Prayer is to be offered three times a day, just like the time-honored Jewish practice (Ps. 55:17). The prayers accompanying the Lord's Table, or the Eucharist, are forms of a familiar Jewish prayer called the birkat hamazon offered at meal times. Unfortunately, most of our churches today know little about the Jewish roots of early Christianity. To return to our Jewish roots involves more than occasionally inviting a Jewish believer to speak in our pulpits.

The Teaching also can guide us regarding false teachers, and it does so in a surprising way. While it commends strongly the ministry of hospitality, it uses equally strong language for those teachers who prey upon the kindness of believers. It sets the limit on traveling teachers' stays in believers' homes at one or two nights. Also, in accord with Jesus' teaching, such traveling itinerants were to be compensated by meeting their physical needs. With a refreshing straightforwardness, however, the Didachist admonishes concerning guest teachers: "But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet." One wonders what the Didachist would say today if he could witness the tearful requests for monetary gifts that come from some of our modern day "prophets." And what would early Christians think of preachers today who demand a certain fee for preaching at a church or conference?

The Teaching contains some refreshing advice on church life and organization. Consistent with the New Testament, it advises congregations "to appoint for yourselves overseers and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are humble and not avaricious and true and approved, for they too carry out for you the ministry of the prophets and teachers." Many writers have noticed a "primitive simplicity" in the way that the Teaching describes the pastoral ministry in local assemblies. One finds in it no elaborate hierarchy of "bishops, priests, and deacons" such as developed in the second century.

The Didachist encourages believers to attend to their teacher's words, to gather on the first day of the week to observe a simple Eucharist, and to confess their sins before the assembly. When did you last hear someone honestly confessing his or her sins before the congregation? While such a practice could be open to abuse, why omit it altogether, especially when the New Testament also commends it (James 5:16)?

Not many evangelical churches observe the Eucharist weekly, but the Teaching prescribes a simple liturgy for weekly observance, using Old Testament "servant" terminology for the Lord Jesus (Isa. 53). The observance of this Eucharist was in the context of an entire meal, the standard practice of the early church until well into the second century. Why do so many churches today exchange something as important as this experience for a 10-minute ceremony, tacked onto an otherwise unaltered worship service, observed once a month at most? My liturgical brethren may have something on me with their weekly Eucharist. But can they honestly say that they are observing what both Jesus and the Teaching command?

The only other sacrament or ordinance that the Teaching recognizes is baptism. However, it settles no Baptist-Presbyterian controversies, since it allows baptism by either immersion or pouring, in either cold flowing water or warm still water. This handling of the mode of baptism reveals a compassionate pastoral genius.

How, Not Why
The passage about baptism contains the following opening clause, "After you have reviewed all these things, then baptize." The "things" that were to be reviewed are the six chapters of instruction that the Didachist had just given. They consist almost exclusively of practical instructions relevant to the life of a renewed person saved from the rampant vices of a pagan empire. Missing, however, is any detailed instruction in what we today call theology. I emphasized before that the Teaching is thoroughly orthodox in doctrine, with a high Christology and a clear affirmation of the Trinity. But mostly the Teaching describes the behavior that should characterize a new believer.

My perception is that the vast majority of instruction classes in our churches today deal primarily with what we are to believe, not how we are to obey. Perhaps the Teaching has something to offer us, when we find so many doctrinally orthodox believers struggling in their daily temptations, in their marriages, and in their practical Christian walks. Maybe a training program along the practical lines of the Teaching should replace the rote doctrinal rehearsals that characterize many of our classes for baptismal candidates.

Some churches today place a strong emphasis on eschatology and Bible prophecy. The New Testament also indicates that believers should be aware that they live in the "last days" (Heb. 1:2; 1 John 2:18). The lapse of a couple of generations since the birth of the church did not lessen that emphasis in the Teaching, which ends with an entire chapter devoted to eschatology. But if readers expect to find answers to all the prophetic puzzles and questions they have encountered, then they will be disappointed. Yes, the Antichrist is mentioned as the "world deceiver," but we get no clues as to who, specifically, the Antichrist will be. No clear indications of a sudden rapture are mentioned, but believers are warned that a fiery test is coming for them. No clear millennial position is advocated, but a resurrection for believers only is assumed. The book ends abruptly, with a reference to seeing the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven.

The Teaching's original readers did not need to be titillated by prophecy novels, but they did need to live holy lives in light of what lies ahead. Are we who are even closer to the coming of the Lord any different in our needs?

We often remark that we desire to minister like the early church. Well, here is a book that helps us better understand how to do just that.

William Varner teaches biblical studies and Greek at the Master's College in Santa Clarita, California. His book The Way of the Didache will be published in the fall by University Press of America.

The Didache on Taking Life
"You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery;" you shall not corrupt boys; you shall not be sexually promiscuous; "you shall not steal;" you shall not practice magic; you shall not engage in sorcery; you shall not abort a child nor commit infanticide (2:2).

The Didache on Baptism
Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: After you have reviewed all these things, baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times "in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit" (7:13).

This appeared in Christianity Today. Couldn't post a link for some reason, but following is their web address: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/006/13.30.html

[spatso]

I suppose the debate will go on forever. I cannot get beyond the notion that I am responsible, that there exists within me some moral accountability for my choices. If, I have experienced an infusion of grace than surely, I must be obliged, somehow, to honor and participate in this giftedness. Indeed, it would seem if I have been called, if I have seen the light than perhaps, Pelagius may have been right. I am responsible to live the new life that I have been shown. If I falter, the fault is mine not God's.

[Bryan24]

Very wordy article.

If God is completely sovereign, then God is the purveyor of sin into the world and in the world.

Really a sadist, looking back at the history of the Israelites. All of that killing and suffering. And for what?

Calvin was wrong and Luther was wrong.