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

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

[annalex]

Yup, that's the part. As you can see, bishop Minatios did not say anything St. Augustine did not say.

You mean it depend on how nice a person is going to be whether God will love him.

Nope, I don't mean that, nor did the bishop. God loves everyone, so those who love him back, and those who reject him both get what they want.

[annalex]

filled with errors in understanding and misuse of Scripture, as I pointed out to you.

And I pointed out to you (1,010) that you did not understand either the treatise or the verses you posted thinking that they refute anything.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

I see you're talking to me again.

Couldn't resist! But I won't keep at it very long. Especially if you don't.

People think they can "refuse" the gift that God sent. The problem is they don't even know the gift exists.

Nice try but same fallacy. A gift unknown to the recipient is not a gift. If God meant to say that he gives gifts but hides knowledge of them from people, then he's not really giving gifts. Perhaps he meant to say this, but, if so, for the life of me, I can't figure out why God, who supposedly knows everything, wouldn't use words that mean what he means instead of using words that don't mean what he means and that are dependent on HarleyD to explain to the rest of the universe.

And before you play gotcha by suggesting that God offers the gift to the person but the person doesn't see it as a gift and in that sense doesn't know that God offered the gift--well, if that's what dear old God really meant, Harley, then that's exactly the same as refusing a proffered gift. If that's what you mean by "not knowing the gift" then you've just agreed with our "God's gifts are refusable" position. It's very possible that I offer you a gift but you think it's poison so you do not "know" it as a gift and thus refuse it. But that's a refusal, for sure. It may be based on sinful "invincible ignorance"--the stubblorn refusal to be convinced of the truth of something--like the Dwarfs in C. S. Lewis's Last Battle who are sitting right in the middle of heaven and refuse to know it to be heaven--but that's their refusal, not God's pulling the wool over their eyes.

The plain meaning of "gift" is that it is offered to someone and the plain meaning of being offered is that the offeree knows it's being offered. If looks upon a truly offered gift as poison, then that' shis problem. And if it's sin that has clouded his vision so he can't see God's gift for a gift, then it's his freely chosen sin that causes him not to see the gift as gift. Unless, of course, you want to say that God makes us sin against our will.

But, suit yourself. I'm sure God thanks you for explaining that he didn't mean what he said. Us biblical literalist Catholics will stick with the plain meaning of gift and avoid such human additions to Scripture, especially human additions to Scripture that turn black into white and plain meanings inside out. I, at least, know what gift means. I don't know that it means "unknown quantity."

[kosta50]

As a Lutheran, I believe in single predestination. Which means simply that God causes a person's heart to be opened to receive Him, but that we have the free will to reject His Grace

That is consistent with the Orthodox/Roman Catholic teaching: God loves us more than we love Him, so He always makes the first move. And we either accept His offer or reject it.

I can not come to Christ on my own, but we are free to leave Him

Again if this is the teaching of the Protestant churches then I don't know who all these other people are on this thread.

It may interest you that the Lutherans approached Constantinople on several occasions in the 16th century shortly after Luther's death. When Austria began to use Lutherans in its administration towards the end of the century, the Austrian ambassador to Istanbul was instrumental in getting a response from the Greeks on their Augsburg profession of Faith. Earlier attempts were ignored because they were a source of embarrassment for the Patriarch. Cornered by the politics of the day, +Jeremiah II, Ecumenical Patriarch, basically rejected the Confession on three times and then broke off permanently with Lutheran divines.

One thing that struck me when reading this was the fact that originally the Lutherans ensured the Patriarch that their differences were minimal and basically geographical:

"Lutheran divines added a letter, in which they said that, though because of the distance between their countries there was some difference in their ceremonies, the Patriarch would acknowledge that they had introduced no innovation into the principal things necessary for salvation; and that they embraced and preserved, as far as their understanding went, the faith that had been taught to them by the Apostles, the Prophets and the Holy Fathers, and was inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Seven Councils and the Holy Scriptures." [Benz, Wittenberg und Byzantium, pp. 73ff]

Nowhere does it say by Bible alone or sola scriptura. So, it appears to me that some of the Protestants of today are second-derivaitives of original Lutherans who apparently were struggling to contain their runaway denial of all Church authority and that splinter groups within the movement gave birth to Protestant-Protestants with little theological semblance to the original version.

Thanks for sharing your views.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You continue to leave out the Scripture to which you vaguely refer.

Surely you're better equipped than that in this debate.

Post the Scripture and then we can discuss it. It may be novel to you, but that's how it's been done on this forum for years now.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

you did not understand either the treatise or the verses you posted thinking that they refute anything.

I read the treatise; I understood the treatise (we've all read dozens like it); and I offered Scripture that clearly and definitively refutes the treatise.

Here's a treatise for you to read.

WHAT EVERY CATHOLIC SHOULD KNOW

[HarleyD]

Revised Version:

Mat 13:44 "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. sits down and really decides if he wants the treasure or not.

Mat 13:45-46 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it. decided that he'd have to think about if for a while. Don't want to jump into anything too rash.

If God meant to say that he gives gifts but hides knowledge of them from people, then he's not really giving gifts.

Nonsense. I would call your attention to this passage.

Num 8:19 "I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and to his sons from among the sons of Israel, to perform the service of the sons of Israel at the tent of meeting and to make atonement on behalf of the sons of Israel, so that there will be no plague among the sons of Israel by their coming near to the sanctuary."

God didn't ask Aaron if he wanted the Levites. He simply told him that He HAD GIVEN them to him. Another example:

Gen 30:19-20 Leah conceived again and bore a sixth son to Jacob. Then Leah said, "God has endowed me with a good gift; now my husband will dwell with me, because I have borne him six sons." So she named him Zebulun.

God didn't ask Leah if she want to conceive. He just gave it to her.

Exactly when do you acquire faith-before or after you believe in God?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"Saved by grace, AFTER all we can do."

Hmmm... They must not have read the Scripture that says there's nothing we can do to make ourselves equal to or worthy of the gift (Eph. 2:8-10).

This realization of our inability has become a source of comfort to me. Knowing Christians have nothing to do with the acquisition of God's grace, I'm made more aware of just how stupendous the gift is, how specific and definite the gift is, and how this gift was proclaimed by God for His glory from before the foundation of the world. At the moment of creation, God already had you and me in His perfect care.

The sense of humility is almost overwhelming. I deserve the gift zero times infinity.

[HarleyD]

Yup, that's the part. As you can see, bishop Minatios did not say anything St. Augustine did not say.

Honestly, in making such a statement do you even understand what Augustine is saying?

Augustine - 'God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,—to whom He would give the Holy Spirit,”

Bishop Minatios - for He foreknows that the person will be good and of an obedient will.

These are two distinct views. Augustine believes everything comes from God including a person’s obedient will. Augustine plains says that God chooses man's faith. Bishop Minatios, with all due respect, is spouting the Pelagius heresy that believe man’s goodness is what saves him. Augustine would bop you on the head with his cane if he heard you say that about him.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Augustine would bop you on the head with his cane if he heard you say that about him.

LOL. I've been reading up on Augustine. He was quite a wild young man. His conversion gives hope to the mother's heart of every rowdy son. 8~)

"Too late, have I loved Thee, O Beauty so ancient and so new, too late have I loved Thee! Thou wast with me, and I was not with Thee; I was abroad, running after those beauties which Thou hast made; those things which could have no being but in Thee kept me away from Thee. Thou hast called, Thou hast cried out, and hast pierced my deafness. Thou hast enlightened, Thou hast shone forth, and my blindness is dispelled. I have tasted Thee, and am hungry of Thee. Thou hast touched me, and I am afire with the desire of thy embraces." -- Augustine

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

You know, Harley, this is not too bright. Whether a man sits down and considers his choice or immediately goes out and sells everything and buys the field makes zero difference as far as refusing/accepting is concerned. Either way he chooses or refuses to act. It's just that in the first scenario, his choice takes longer. Can you really not see how irrelevant your response was?

And the passages from Numbers and Genesis are equally irrelevant. You say that God didn't ask whether the Israelites wanted Levites. Right. He offered them the Levites. But that has nothing to do with the point of my post or with your original claim that we can't refuse God. Your passages from Numbers and Genesis address the question of whether God's offering of a gift is dependent on our acceptance. But I never said it was. I said that a gift only becomes a gift in the full sense of "gift" if it is accepted. Before it is accepted it is an offered gift, when it is accepted it is an accepted gift, when it is refused it is a refused gift.

If you had not led us on this merry little wild goose chase, you might recall that the original point to which I responded was that you claimed that the only reason some men do not have faith is that God did not offer faith to them. You trumpeted how watertight your logic was here.

And I responded that no, there's another possible reason: God offered it and they refused it. Then I pointed out that a gift that cannot be refused is no gift but an imposition.

You then started with your irrelevancies: people don't refuse God's gift but never know the gift.

Your original statement was flat-out absurd but you proudly proclaimed its logic. When I pointed out its logical fallacy you evade and launch irrelevancies.

Only you cannot see how foolish your original "logical" claim was.

I offered you the gift of knowledge about your own foolishness and you blindly reject it. You are right, some people just don't know when they've been offered a gift and thereby they refuse the gift, which was my original point. You refuse the gift because you refuse to think.

[Forest Keeper]

Me: "It seems to me that you presume that RCC leadership has special insight into scripture ..."

No, that's wrong, we don't belileve they have a special insight. We believe that God has guided His Church as a whole and that the checks and balances of the Holy Spirit through multiple men instead of an individual who is NOT God is trust-worthy. Beyond that, The Church encourages us to question and we have recourse to the Fathers who have debated these and their doubts on both sides.

To me, you are agreeing with my point. If God guides "The Church" over time in a way He does not guide the individual, then that is special insight. This leads me to ask you another question, one which I am sure that I am the only one on this thread who doesn't know. :) I want to use the term correctly, so who EXACTLY are the Church Fathers? Does it refer to any prior Church authority (is JPII a Church Father?), or does it refer to the leaders and thinkers of the early Church? Is it a specific group or a general term? Are they all previous popes? On this thread I have been advised to read the Church Fathers, so I suppose this is a first step. :)

Do I as an individual trust them definitionally without thinking? I read through what they teach and the counter points and compare them to Scripture -- and their thoughts hold true.

If their thoughts always hold true, how is that not trusting them definitionally? I thought that every good Catholic was compelled to follow the interpretation of the Church whether he liked it or not. I mean, that's fine and all if the Catholic so chooses to do that. Take the issue of homosexuality for example. I agreed with the general spirit of what Pope Benedict XVI recently held. I just wonder what is going to happen when some future Pope takes a more Episcopalian view. Would you say that can't happen? Would you follow out of loyalty? Would you leave the Church?

The Church has the checks by which there is no reliance on ONE interpretation, but the Holy Spirit through Scriptures. what we see is you following ONE Man's interpretation, not Scripture. By that, we say that we follow Scripture more accurately since we do not rely on ONE Man's interpretation but on the Spirit superceding those men.

Really, what's his name? I want to know whose interpretation I am following. Is it Luther? You must know that throughout Protestantism, there are countless divergences from his teachings. I thought it was you who are bound to one man's interpretation. If the pope decrees something, are you not bound?

We see you as accepting Benny Hinn saying that he is the mouthpiece of God.

If you are really lumping in the Protestants on this thread with the Benny Hinn crowd, then you don't have any fundamental understanding of us at all.

Me: "Do you think we are arrogant simply because we dare to disagree with you?"

No, as I said: Is it arrogant to think that the questions, the doubts, the clarity you have, haven't been thought of in 2000 years by men of God made wiser by the Holy Spirit than you or me? Yes.

You contradict yourself. By "men of God made wiser" you mean Catholic leaders or Church Fathers. You follow them and their teachings. Your views are their views. You say that we are arrogant for not following them. That's the same as accusing us of arrogance for not agreeing with you as a representative of these men made wiser by God.

[Kolokotronis]

I have sat this one out for a couple of days now, not only because I have been busy but because so much of this thread seems to be contesting with those whom our forefathers in The Faith would, without qualm, call heretics. You all remember the words of +John Chrysostomos in his Homily VI on Titus:

"By contentions," he means, with heretics, in which he would not have us labor to no purpose, where nothing is to be gained, for they end in nothing. For when a man is perverted and predetermined not to change his mind, whatever may happen, why shouldest thou labor in vain, sowing upon a rock, when thou shouldest spend thy honorable toil upon thy own people, in discoursing with them upon almsgiving and every other virtue?

How then does he elsewhere say, "If God peradventure will give them repentance" (2 Tim. ii.25); but here, "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself"? In the former passage he speaks of the correction of those of whom he had hope, and who had simply made opposition. But when he is known and manifest to all, why dost thou contend in vain? why dost thou beat the air? What means, "being condemned of himself"? Because he cannot say that no one has told him, no one admonished him; since therefore after admonition he continues the same, he is self-condemned."

However... among the things which struck me as this thread has gone on are a couple of images of God which are presented here. One, that of at least some of the Protestants, is of an ominpotent, wrathful being, a God to be saved from rather than by, as I said sometime back or Kosta's rather capricious puppet master. The other is our fully omnipotent, yet fully transcendant, loving God. The images we all hold of God, speak volumes about what our Church or their assemblies are teaching. I'd like to suggest, however, that among the other ways The Church speaks about our Triune God and the way that the Holy Spirit moves in our lives is this piece of almost pure Athonite spirituality, from Archimandrite Sophrony (+1993), the disciple of +Silouan the Athonite:

"The Holy Spirit comes when we are receptive. He does not compel. He approaches so meekly that we may not even notice. If we would know the Holy Spirit we need to examine ourselves in the light of the Gospel teaching, to detect any other presence which may prevent the Holy Spirit from entering into our souls. We must not wait for God to force Himself on us without our consent. God respects and does not constrain man. It is amazing how God humbles Himself before us. He loves us with a tender love, not haughtily, not with condescension. And when we open our hearts to Him we are overwhelmed by the conviction that He is indeed our Father. The soul then worships in love."

"...God humbles Himself before us." "He approaches so meekly that we may not even notice." Isn't that extraordinary? The Pantokrator humbles Himself before us! And if this is true, and I sincerely believe it is, then how can it be that this God who meekly approaches us with humility to infuse us with His uncreated energies is the source of the arrogance of individual men who proclaim that they, sua sponte, can divine the meaning of scripture better than the consensus patrum, or in the Western terminology, the Magisterium, of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church established at Pentecost?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Then I pointed out that a gift that cannot be refused is no gift but an imposition.

LOL. Please, God, please, impose Yourself on me. Every moment of every day of my life. (And while You're at it, please impose Yourself on my husband and kids, too.)

May they know it as their greatest blessing.

[P-Marlowe]

You refuse the gift because you refuse to think.

So salvation comes to those who are smart?

If you are smart, then you will accept the gift of God's grace?

If so, is not our intelligence a gift from God?

If not, then why did you use that as an analogy?

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Most certainly intelligence is a gift from God. Like all gifts, it can be refused.

[jo kus]

Good works are the result of our salvation, not a requirement for it.

Depends what you mean by salvation. If you mean "initial justification", we can agree. However, good works are as much a gift as salvation is. EVERYTHING we have is from God, correct?

Regards

[annalex]

I was assuming that all participants here can readily identify the passages, and a brief reference makes the point I am making clearer. On the opposite, when a bumper-sticker size scripture snipped is posted without any thought, that would relate it to the discussion, attached, the thread becomes unreadable and the debate impossible to follow. I surely did not intend to make it harder for you or for anyone else.

Here is my post, this time fully annotated.

Good Works Are Required For Salvation, Scripture Says

Christ was asked what one needs to do in order to be saved. His answer was, obey the commandments (work); give everything to the poor (work), pick up the cross and follow Him (work). Indeed,

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying: Good master, what shall I do to possess everlasting life? 19 And Jesus said to him: Why dost thou call me good? None is good but God alone. 20 Thou knowest the commandments: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not bear false witness: Honour thy father and mother.

21 Who said: All these things have I kept from my youth. 22 Which when Jesus had heard, he said to him: Yet one thing is wanting to thee: sell all whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 He having heard these things, became sorrowful; for he was very rich.

(Luke 18, similar Matthew 19:16-22)

If you fail to show mercy and charity (work, work) do not call on Christ with your faith because He will say, "Do I know you?". Indeed,

31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

(Matthew 25)

*** 16 By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. 24 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.

(Matthew 7, similar in Luke 6:46-49)

For good measure:

12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works. 14 And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.

(Apocalypse 20)

[jo kus]

The real sadness is that some submit so readily. I urge anyone to return to the Bible and read for themselves. It's all there, by the work of the Holy Spirit.

If it is so obvious, why do so many people of good will disagree with your position?

Regards

[annalex]

Here's a treatise for you to read.

That is some kind of a scripture gotcha game, not a treatise. If there is any apparent contradiction between the Catechism and the scripture that you are particularly interested in, ask and I will explain.