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

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

[Cronos]

Me: We think the "elect" are all of God's people in the sense that God wants ALL of humanity to be saved. Do you believe that God loves and wants ALL of humanity to be saved? Well, we do.

ZN: Absolutely not. He hates a whole bunch of them.

So, God HATES humanity -- that's what you believe? You believe in a deity that hates His own creation? You believe in a malevolent deity akin to one of the native American deities whom we have to placate to be saved from His wrath? You don't believe in a loving God.

And I believe with all my heart that whatever happens to me will be merciful and just, for God is both.

True -- a Protestant God seems at best only just, not a merciful, loving, Christian God. It seems more like Allah at times.

Are you following him or are you following your own intellect as all Protestants claim? If you follow your own interpretations, then he is not you pastor. Food for thought, but don't let me lead you there!

Key point: many Protestants sincerely believe that they are interpreting things for them, but all of the protestaers I've met in real life do nothing more than say: This is what my pastor said, and he said do this or do that -- and these people turn around and accuse us of blindly following the Church. Well, no, we are encouraged to ask and to read and we see that it is good. We are not a man-created organisation, we ARE God's Church.

I said that God changes His plan if He sees fit. He is not limited as to the options available to Him. And all His solutions lead to the same end, regardless of us. He changes what happens to us, upon repentance (true repentance I mean, metanoia).

Exactly, a Protestant deity seems like a powerless deity, one who has created a plan full stop and cannot now change that plan as He wishes, a deity that is bound by a plan, so the plan is more powerful than the deity.

[Cronos]

I liked Bohemund's refutal so much, I'm going to repeat it:

Your lists were rife with inaccuracies. Shouldn't they read:

Orthodox/Catholic:

1) Not sure if they're saved or not Do not presume that they will go to Heaven

2) Must do good works to be saved Faith without works is dead.

3) Asks the saints to intercede for them May ask saints to pray for them, but pray to God.

4) Have to constantly be filled with "God's grace" through the Eucharist Honored to obey Jesus' instructions at the Last Supper

5) No plan of God for one's lifeDo not pretend to know God's mind

Reformed:

1) God loves me and has guarentee my salvation God loves the elect and has guaranteed their salvation, but hates the rest of humanity

2) I'm saved by what our Lord Jesus has done Only the elect are saved by Jesus' works

3) I can boldly go directly to the throne of God the Father because of His Son

4) God has rebirth me and sealed me with His Holy SpiritGod has rebirthed the elect and sealed only them with the Holy Spirit

5) God has a perfect plan for my life to give me a future and a hope God has a perfect plan for the elect, but created the rest of humanity to be damned

[Cronos]

The Vatican is built on a hill that was previously devoted to a pagan goddess. Popes are not followers of Peter ( and there is no record of him ever being in Rome, only in Jerusalem)but they are the political descendents of the vicars that ruled Rome, Pontiff Maximae.

Hilarious!!! And other Churchs are also built on top of destroyed pagan temples. This doesn't signify a worship of the other deity, or else do you mean to say that the Muslim worshippers in the Dome of the Rock are actually Jews?

Popes are followers of Christ. They are successors to Peter. There is sufficient evidence from the 1st century of the Bishops of Rome referring to themselves as Peter's successors. Next, you're going to join the pseudo-scientists and claim that Christ never existed because there isn't a home-movie to prove it.

No "vicars" ruled pagan Rome. Republican Rome had two consuls and one Head Priest (Pontifex Maximus). Some Caesers and Augustii (or as people who don't know much woudl call them: Emperors) took the title of Pontifex Max too. but once the empire was Christianized, the title of head priest in Rome went to the leader of the Church in Rome -- to the bishop of Rome. This is not a political succession, rather a usage of words. They continued speaking Latin after they converted, so they called their priests, priest.

[Cronos]

Yes, and that Babylon was converted to Christ and, in a tremendous display of the power of God over the power of man, the former pagan capital and persecutor of Christians became the means by which vast number of souls were brought to know Christ.

[Cronos]

And there is absolutely no proof whatsoever, that Peter ever went to Rome, was beheaded, and or crucified upside down. Scripture does not speak of any of this.

And there's absolutely no proof that there was ever the Han Kingdom in China or even IS anything like the Americas. Scripture does not speak of any of this. /sarcasm --> don't give illogical, silly, reasonings.

you want proof, Bohemund's given it in post 1394. If you deny that, you'd probably also join in with the funny group that try to deny that there ever was a person called Jesus.

[Cronos]

And I guess Clement, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Lactantius, Dionysius of Corinth, Gaius, Eusebius and the rest were all lying about Peter being at Rome as part of a grand conspiracy.

Exactly -- as idiotic a suggestion as those idiots who try to "prove" that Christ never existed and that Christianity was "invented" by Paul

[Cronos]

Hearsay, won't stand up in court, sorry. Where is the hard evidence

Ok, so the Great Wall of China doesn't exist, acc to you? And neither does America or for that matter, any of the modern nations of the world?

We have, scripturally, "Greetings from Babylon". That speaks volumes.

And that was "code" for Rome. The original Babylon by that time was a ruined city so the term was used to signify another oppresor of the Jews. And this new "Babylon" was ruined too - pagan Rome was destroyed and in a fantastic truimph of God's will, was made into a center of Christendom.

[Cronos]

So you and I, and the pastor's wife, and all the congregation down at

Whatever your organization does, may or may not have anything to do with The Church.

[Cronos]

Peter tells you, flat out, he's in Babylon, which really is quite funny, but you prefer to ignore the implications of the remark. Maybe he was talkng literally, and maybe figuratively.

Now, that's plain out silly. Babylon was a ruined city in the 1st century AD. Furthermore, it was in Partian control. How would a person from the Roman Empire get there? Furthermore, even arguing about that is silly -- there's adequate proof that the term "Babylon" was used for Rome. If you take it a literally Babylon, that's wrong. Taking it as literally or fuguratively are two different things. It's like saying now: "hollywood Babylon", so if the papers say someone in LA is in Babylon, then, are they really in Iraq?

[Cronos]

The bible only gives evidence of his being in Jerusalem. Anything other than that is pure speculation.

The Bible doesn't say anything about China, so it's pure speculation that it existed, eh? There's adequate proof as pointed out in post #1394.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The Scriptural post points out the need to choose to be Born Again -- free will

Where does it say in Scripture that we "choose" whether or not to be born again? Did you "choose" to be born the first time?

Maybe this is like "electing yourself" as someone said earlier.

[Cronos]

Ok, so now you sound confused:

First you say that the Babylon referred to means that Peter was in southern Iraq. Then, you say maybe he was in Rome. Then you say that he was probably confused (possibly, considering the two places are hundreds of miles apart, so jet-lag would come into effect /sarcasm

[Cronos]

The very name itself derives from Baal, and its sins against God are legendary.

That's silly. Babylon was originally a small Sumerian settlement (the real tower of Babel would have been one of the Sumerian Ziggurats, not the Akkadian, and this would have been in the cities of Uruk etc.), and even later, when it became Akkadian, they worshipped Sumerian gods.

Baal was a Canaanite god. secondly, his name was Hadad. "Baal" means Lord, so you would refer to God as Baal too -- as you'd call him Lord.

Everytime it is used in the bible its confused spirituality is to be considered, whether its actual or spiritual Babylon, don't you think?
No confused spirituality existed -- they clearly worshipped an evil, false god. The OLD Rome did, but Christian Rome triumphed over the false gods.

[Forest Keeper]

[Reversing the order of your post] "Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory" [2 Tim 2:10]

You interpret this to mean that other than the elect are saved. Paul had assurance in his own salvation. He did not have assurance in the salvation of others in general because he did not know the names already written in the Book of Life. He is saying here that he is suffering on behalf of the elect, many of whom he does not know, that they might also in the future obtain the salvation that Paul already knows he has.

We say that we are not born with salvation (only the predestination of it), but that there is a point in the life of every elect that salvation occurs. For Paul that point was in the past, but he knew that for many elect who were then alive, that point had not been reached yet. Therefore, he wished to encourage these people before they obtained the salvation Paul already had.

This is not a subject of how you "feel." Where does it say in Scriptures that only the "elect" are saved?

In addition to Dr. Eckleburg's Romans verse in 1546, which is good by itself, I would simply add:

1 Peter 1:1-2 : "1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

It appears Peter may actually agree with us. :) You have to admit that this letter was written to a Christian (I would say saved) audience, and to admit to the other scripture linking obedience to salvation. According to the verse, the elect are chosen by God to obey, not others (i.e. if you say that God "chose" other than the elect to obey, you deny free choice). Other than the elect will not obey. Only those who obey are saved. Therefore, only the elect are chosen to be saved.

[Cronos]

Do you think God can't see those myriad possibilities?

1) No.  --> No as in God can't see the myriad possibilities?

And do you think that these little decisions affect God's overall plan?
2) No.   --> Good, so you believe in free will.

Who is to say he doesn't cause them?

3) Probably. --> So God causes evil?

I suspect that the calamities that befall us are all a part of God's eternal plan, don't you?

4) He permitted it, he did nothing to prevent it.  --> Now, you're sitting on the fence.  Does he cause the calamities?  According to your idea of a plan, he does.

So, you say that God caused the Tsunami in 2004?
5) He permitted it, he did nothing to prevent it.  --> Now, you're sitting on the fence.  Does he cause the calamities?  According to your idea of a plan, he does.

That He caused the Holocaust? That He caused the Killing Fields in Cambodia?
6)Yes.  --> So, God caused tha Holocaust and the genocides around the world?

And yet you believe in the idea of an "elect"?
7) It was part of his divine plan from the foundation of the earth.   --> as shown above, this is a wrong guess, no better than Mohammmed's idea of a mish-mash religion

why did He choose Peter?
8) It was part of his divine plan from the foundation of the earth.  --> as shown above, this is a wrong guess, no better than Mohammmed's idea of a mish-mash religion.  Interestingly, the Islammics believe in pre-destination too.

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

Your questions:

1. If God knows something is going to happen, what are the odds that it will not happen? God Knows all the various possibilities and all eventualities.  Anything that can or will or has happened is known to God.  That's different from God forcing people to sin or not.
2. I suspect that the calamities that befall us are all a part of God's eternal plan, don't you?  No.  God does not plan for evil.  He KNOWS it, but that does not mean He ORDAINS it.
3. I don't believe that any Christian (lives a happy and joyous life and never doubts?) on earth gets to fall in that category. Why should all of them? Are you questioning God's motives?  You state the concept of an "elect", so, your first statement is at loggerheads with this
4. The Bible says that Judas was chosen "that the prophecy might be fulfilled." I believe that. Do you? God KNEW Judas would betray Him, God did not force Judas to do so.
5. Certainly it wasn't because of anything they had done. It was simply part of his plan. Why did Jesus choose you?  God does not pre-destine a person to be damned or be chosen.  Jesus chose me because I accepted His grace.

[Cronos]

Where does it say in Scripture that we "choose" whether or not to be born again? Did you "choose" to be born the first time?

Where does it say that we don't choose? Jesus tells Nicodemus that He must be born again, that He must choose to do so.

Maybe this is like "electing yourself" as someone said earlier.
That's what "elect" groupings believe in -- they "elect themselves" as the chosen.

[annalex]

No one prior to Luther attempted to reduce the Christian Canon, once it was settled in Carthage in early 5 c. The fact that the deuterocanon was not formally recognized until Trent is equally true for any other book, Genesis to Apocalypse. Show me a Christian Bible prior to Trent that did not contain the Deuterocanon, or stop insinuating anything was added by Trent. The lies and half-truths spread by Protestants about the history of the Church are in themselves enough to condemn their entire enterprise to Hell, and you have been corrected enough times to know better.

The Church does not teach that "we receive grace by works". We teach what the scripture say, that we are judged by our works and that we are commanded to do works of charity. We don't disagree that the works are outcome of faith and are enabled by grace.

Likewise, the Church does not teach anything contrary to the fact that "scripture [is a] verification of their ideas". That is not the error of Luther's. I told you very specifically what is: the notion that the subset of the scripture that he likes is sufficient and can be understood outside of the entire Tradition, written and unwritten.

Regarding grace, I explained what is the error: that grace does not regenerate constantly and often gradually in one's lifetime. When pressed to the corner, Protestants usually find a formilation that is vague enough to dance away from Luther's dungheap. That is good that they feel compelled to obfuscate; but the dungheap theory of man is still an error.

[annalex]

I agree with Kosta, -- we have absolute assurance of mercy as well as an absolute assurance of salvation through the sacraments of the Church and commandments of Christian ethics. There is not much we can do with it, because consciousness of this assurance is the sin of presumption, but assurance it is.

[annalex]

Thank you for your questions. They prompted me to examine the tenets of my faith that I held intuitively, and formulate them, and thereby strengthen my faith. This is a perfect example of why arguing over matters of faith is so beneficial to both sides of the argument.

[Forest Keeper]

If in all the length of my #1477 I was ignoring many of your points then I do apologize and will try again. :)

(1) that the concept of sin is meaningless in the predestined world of your theology, in which God is the author and the cause of Adam's sin as much as He is of yours and mine.

I have always said that God is not the author of evil because it is not in His nature, but that He allows evil to happen for His own purposes. Sin is very meaningful. I have also said that in a sense God's omissions could be considered "causal" because of His authority (the betrayal of Judas).

I make a distinction between causation and authorship. God was not the source of the evil in Judas because we are clearly told that satan entered into him and prompted him to the betrayal. God could have stopped this, but He didn't (thank God for me!). Therefore, in a sense, God caused the betrayal to happen by not preventing it, as He was the only one who could have, but He was certainly not the cause of the evil itself, satan was.

(2) that, according to your theology, we are not to be judged according to our deeds (Mat 16:27), as the Scripture clearly states, but divinely preordained to heaven or hell. Your beliefs hold that, just as no amount of good works glorifying God can benefit your salvation, no amount of evil can condemn you, and send you to hell. In that case, everyone's is God's "elect." Just the roles are opposite!

I believe that we will all stand before God and give an account for our deeds, and that we will thereby receive our reward IN Heaven, not TO Heaven. (Matt. 16:27)

I agree that good works do not benefit our salvation in terms of earning it, but I would say that good works are a part of a saved person's life. It is in our new nature to do good works, so a saved person will do them. That leads to not everyone being elect, because the unsaved cannot do good works out of a love for God (new nature), which makes those works "count". I know there must be some Catholics who will throw me a bone on this one! :)

As for the evil, I'll just repeat that yes, there is enough evil I could do that would cost me my salvation, but that if my salvation was real, God promised me He wouldn't let that happen because He keeps His own.

(3) If God is the author of everything good and evil then repentance, of which the Bible is full, is a meaningless "ritual". Since God already knows how you feel, and since everything you do is done because you are only doing God's will, repentance becomes a nonsense.

Please see answer to (1). In addition, I do not do only God's will. I do what Paul did:

Rom. 7:15-20 : "15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. "

(4) If everything was preordained, from the beginning and is preprogrammed until the end, why did Christ die for the unrighteous when the unrighteous are unrighteous by God's hands? In this case God is redeeming us from Himself!

Please see answer to (1). Christ died for us because He loves us. He redeems our sin, which is not a part of God.

(5) Thus the redemption becomes an oxymoron, because humanity has been prepackaged in an inflexible and rigid, even morbid Reformed choreography of God's Plan (never did find that word in Scripture).

It all depends on from whose point of view you are considering. From our POV, it is all very exciting because we do not know the future or any of the "prepackaging". Much of what is in truth inflexible and rigid is unknown to us and very much in play.

From God's POV, I have asked myself: "If God already knows everything that's going to happen, then why get out of bed in the morning?" To me, it is one of God's beautiful mysteries. I can't explain it. :)

I'm not sure to which word you are referring to having not found in scripture. For any given verses, there are many words in the Bible (that you use) that may not be in mine, and vice-versa. However, I'd bet that in many cases we would agree as to the meaning of the given verse.

(6) What God set out to do, He has already accomplished. God is not building new worlds. His job is done: because He is here and yesterday and at the end of times all at once. Surely His plan stands finished at the end of times. I am not changing perspectives, but you seem to be confusing His eternal nature with our temporal world.

I did answer you on this, but maybe I misunderstood what you were getting at. I agreed that God completed the part of His plan involving dying on the cross for sins. I meant to say that I think that is only part of God's "whole existence thing" plan. From our POV, there is still the future. I won't quibble that from God's POV everything is already a done deal. I think I was confused that you said it though, because that supports my contention that God's plan does not change. But, as I said, maybe I misunderstood or confused what you were saying with that of other posters. If so, then I am sorry. I'm not sure what you mean by my "confusing His eternal nature with our temporal world".

(7) And if God is involved in our lives I beg to know why (from your Protestant point of view). He preordained what will be and nothing will change (because it's perfect as you say), so God is rendered less than omnipotent by being subject to necessity!

Oh, is this what you meant above? OK. I just meant that God is involved in our lives from our POV. Again, I won't quibble with you on the "how does God transcend time" thing. If you want to say that from God's POV that everything is already a done deal because He simultaneously exists in all time, I'm not really in a position to argue with you from a full knowledge of the actual truth about that.

I honestly think you are splitting hairs by saying that I think God is less than omnipotent because He is constrained and subject to His own plan! I have argued that since God's plan is perfect that it won't need to change from our POV. Because His plan is perfect, it shows His omnipotence.

If I understand you correctly, I get confused by your arguments that on the one hand God's plan can change, but on the other hand God's plan is already done.

(8) You pray because you don't know, but why not just resign yourself to saying that whatever happens to me is what God decided -- it is merciful and just, for mercy will triumph over judgment (Jam 2:13). If everything has been predetermined, each step and each word we make and utter, why would He be in our lives?

You see, there is a big contradiction in what you are saying: God has preordained everything, yet He intervenes in our lives?

I pray because I know God wants me to, and it is very beneficial to me in my life here on earth. I'm fully aware that I'm not going to get everything I pray for, which is partly why I always pray for God's (preordained) will. The other part is what if I accidentally pray for something that would actually harm me. I'd rather have God know that (in advance) and turn me down flat for my own good. :)

As to why He would be in our lives if everything is already predetermined, that goes back to the earlier perspective arguments and my earlier admission to not knowing this mystery of God. I know with all my heart that for me, God intervenes in my life every day. Amen!

Take that pitiful man, Pat Robertson, for example -- his latest "pearl" is that God is punishing Ariel Sharon for selling Israel (because Israel is His land)! ... But, I must wonder, on whose account and by whose will is Ariel Sharon selling Israel that he is being punished when God, according to you and your cohorts, is in full control of Mr. Sharon -- and, by the same "logic" -- Mr. Sharon is doing "God's" work by selling Israel, according to the Reformed theology that is.

WHOA! I don't remember signing up as a defender of Pat Robertson. LOL! I think he gets into almost all of his trouble, not because what he is thinking is completely baseless, but that his political and diplomatic instincts are so poor. I've seen him do it a dozen times on TV. He says something and I answer back "Pat, you know they're going to kill you for that, why did you say it?" Too funny.

But, back to what you were talking about. I would refer back to my causation/authorship distinction. If what Sharon is doing is sin (and I don't know) then God did not author it, but allowed it to happen for His purpose. If what Sharon is doing is good, then God caused it and authored it. Nobody I know is saying that Sharon's stroke is a punishment from God; for my part, I would never be so presumptuous.

I infer from the totality of your paragraph that you think I believe that all that actions are "God's work" because I claim that God is in control of everything. So, if Sharon is selling Israel, then that is God's work. You then seem to imply that this idea is inconsistent with God punishing him for it, since God is the one who really did it. There is no contradiction at all, and I think you are splitting hairs again by trying to show God as authoring "badness" or evil.

God uses bad occurrences to further His plan and glorify Himself. When I commit a certain sin, God might directly punish me. God could have prevented me from committing the sin, but He didn't. So, is it fair for Him to punish me? Absolutely. God punishes me because He loves me, and it was I who chose to sin. I, hopefully, will learn from the punishment. This is God's plan.

Well, even if you think my answers are lousy, you have to give me that I tried! :) God bless.