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

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

[Cronos]

To add to Kosta's words: I can see a distinct difference between the beliefs expressed by you FK, Harley and Marlowe and also the other Protestant believers here (RmMom, Redgolum, etc.). That's the issue we Catholic-Orthodox have in answering a question directed at all of you -- some may agree with some points and others won't. Some Protestant groupings are pretty close to ours: like High Anglicans (to be precise, the African Anglicans) or High Lutherans. Some are quite distant like Jehovah's witnesses or some Evangelicals. I think Baptist groups vary quite a bit as well.

[Cronos]

It is those who live by faith who are the sons of Abraham.

So, Muslimes are sons of Abraham?

[Cronos]

Actually 'tronis --> I think this thread has helped me at least, gain a deeper understanding of what various Protestant groups believe and also to see that most (including Harley and P-Marlowe) deeply believe in what they've been taught to think.

In some cases, as Kosta's pointed out, there are Protestants here who deeply love God and perhaps they've also learnt about what we believe and why we believe what we do. Hopefully they would go away with a clearer point of view that we are not spoon-fed by our priests to become mindless robots and that we do believe in a completely omniscient God and more importantly, a completely omnipotent God -- one not bound by fate or karma or a closed plan but one who's powers and mercy and love are boundless.

[Cronos]

The study was about the leadership not the doctrine

Then it was not germane to the discussion. Dion pointed out that your groupings have varied dogmas that differ from each other. The Catholic Church encompasses different rites, but the basic dogma is the same -- that is why the Church is one. Ditto for the Orthodox.

Can YOU say for a certainty that the dogma in one Protestant grouping (say the Calvinists) is the same as in another (the Baptists say) or even within those groups would the dogma be the same? you say that Even very "different" soteriologies like the Arminians and Calvinists here hold probably 90 % of our doctrine in common only an alteration of the order of salvation . but that 10% of difference in BASIC DOCTRINE. The Catholic Church does not have that. We don't have UNITARIANS who deny the Trinity. You would have that if you put yourself under that umbrella term called Protestantism. It's akin to that umbrella term called Hinduism -- Hinduism also encompasses myriad beliefs (to an extent even Buddhism and Sikhism are Hindu religions).

[RnMomof7]

To add to Kosta's words: I can see a distinct difference between the beliefs expressed by you FK, Harley and Marlowe and also the other Protestant believers here (RmMom, Redgolum, etc.).

Actually we all hold to the basic tenets of Christianity and salvation by faith alone. The differences between us is not much different than between the RC's and EOs . We are simply not afraid to openly debate our differences. :)

That's the issue we Catholic-Orthodox have in answering a question directed at all of you -- some may agree with some points and others won't. Some Protestant groupings are pretty close to ours: like High Anglicans (to be precise, the African Anglicans) or High Lutherans. Some are quite distant like Jehovah's witnesses or some Evangelicals. I think Baptist groups vary quite a bit as well.

Please do not include churches that deny the trinity or the Divinity of Christ in with professing Protestants. The JW's deny the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. They can be found as listed with cults, as a professing Protestant I find your list offensive

[RnMomof7]

Can YOU say for a certainty that the dogma in one Protestant grouping (say the Calvinists) is the same as in another (the Baptists say) or even within those groups would the dogma be the same? you say that Even very "different" soteriologies like the Arminians and Calvinists here hold probably 90 % of our doctrine in common only an alteration of the order of salvation . but that 10% of difference in BASIC DOCTRINE

Not at all. That 10% is in soteroliogy . It encompasses the Ordo Salutis.

I know Catholics that deny the "infallibility " of the Pope, the need to confess to a priest, the need to go to mass on Sundays under penalty of mortal sin, I have seen figures on Catholic web sites that say less than 40% of catholics believe in the "real presence" .I have met Catholics that do not believe in purgatory. Needless to say around 30 % or more of abortions are on Catholic women, vasectomies and tubals are commonplace as is the use of Birth control. So doctrinal distinctives are found within your own church body, people just do not discuss it.

Protestants feel free to examine scripture and search for the truth . Not much hidden that needs to be brought to the light.

[Cronos]

your link is funneee!

Many Protestants are also aware of the fact that in choosing a Bible one must avoid the shelf labelled "Roman Catholic Bibles," because these are designed to promote Catholic beliefs

Really? Designed? Then how come the Orthodox share these same books? And how come, if you stay true to the translation, you come up with "Catholic Bibles"?

And so it is evident that most of us receive certain books and reject others not because we have personally evaluated them in any way, but because we trust that someone else has evaluated them and decided rightly concerning this matter, so that all scripture and nothing but scripture is between the covers of our Bibles.

You further refute the statement that protestants come to their own beliefs and are inspired on their ownsome. No, many believe what has been taught to them. That's why Dion is hesitant to call you heretics as this is the belief system you have been brought up in and honestly believe in as the truth.

In the year 367 an influential bishop named Athanasius published a list of books to be read in the churches under his care, which included precisely those books we have in our Bibles (with this exception — he admitted Baruch and omitted Esther in the Old Testament).

This is silly -- the author accepts the word of ONE Bishop but discounts the words of a council barely a century later?

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

I have to disagree with my Catholic brother. Both East and West define things as needed. They differ in the precise way they do it (councils/papacy in differing relationship) and in frequency, at least for the last 1500 years. The West has done more defining recently (measured in centuries), but only because the West has had chronic challenges (less obedience, one might say, more stubborn invincible ignorance etc.), more church-splitting controversies requiring resolution. Definitions simply are determinations of the authentic Christian teaching made by the proper authorities to maintain unity.

Of course, unity will only be maintained if the followers of the authorized deciders of doctrine follow the decision, obey the definition. Because they have free will, some of them choose to ignore the definitions.

But the West is not any less willing to leave things less defined, as mysteries. The history of the West has required a lot more defining since the 300s and 400s. But in the 300s and 400s it was reversed: the huge controversies swirled in the East and were much less divisive in the West. The definitions were done by councils but the bishop of Rome played a key role from a distance as well.

As Islam swarmed over the East external pressure tended to harden things in the existing channels: the existing divisions going back to the 300s and 400s remained but relative unity and thus less need for definitions dominated. In the West, the absence of an external foe permitted the flourishing of Western European culture, universities, nationalism etc. but all that created repeated controversies, continuing on through the Protestant Reformation (and parallel movements with Catholicism: Jansenism, Quietism) to the Enlightenment (which challenged frontally key beliefs, which then had to be defended and defined)).

It's an ancient canard that Greeks did philosophy and art while Latins only were capable of military, legal, and engineering exploits. It's a caricature, but it persists. I think it's best left aside.

[Cronos]

by Total depravity you mean that you believe that all of mankind is irredeemably evil? by Limited atonement do you mean that you believe that the penance one does is of no significance. Please could you clarify? Thanks!

[Cronos]

When you ask whether it was God's intent that satan become evil I would first say that satan did not get the evil from God because He does not have it to offer. God allowed it, but had the full authority and power to prevent it. So, in a sense, God intended it because He didn't prevent it, but the evil itself did not originate from God. God created what became evil, first satan, then Adam, then the rest of us.

Ok, that's a step closer to us. We say that God did not ordain or cause sin. Sin is the rejction of God and His ways. You and we also agree that God KNEW about it and COULD have ACTED on it. Perhaps God intended it? I don't know, but I will say that He did not pre-ordain sin and pre-ordain that Satan or we would sin. He did not sit down and say -- I will condemn Satan to heck before he's created.

[Cronos]

The JW's deny the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. They can be found as listed with cults, as a professing Protestant I find your list offensive

apologies -- I would have normally listed them as a Protestant group.

[Cronos]

I know Catholics that deny the "infallibility " of the Pope,

note that the infallibility is limited to dogmatic decisions made ex-cathedra. This is a very limited list. Most of the persons who oppose this infallibility consider it to mean that everything the Pope says is gospel.

[annalex]

It is funny. Makes me regret I did not go to the links. Imagine the deviousness with which the East and the West, in the course of thousands of years designed a bible to promote Catholic beliefs.

[Forest Keeper]

The fact that we sin PERIOD after our 'salvation' tells us that man's "fleshy" nature has not been completely turned to God. Yes, our works are a fruit of our salvation, but not irresistibly so. ... If it was ALL God without any cooperation from me, then I would never sin - my will would not interfere anymore with the Will of God.

Well, I agree in full with the first part. I would disagree that if it was all God, that I would never sin. That "sin happens" is part of God's plan. Judas was part of God's plan. There must be a million examples of God using the sin of both believers and unbelievers for His own purposes. So, when I sin, it is certainly to my own complete shame and God doesn't "approve". But, God wastes nothing and my sin can be used by God to serve another purpose, or even bringing me later closer to Him.

At some point, we all have to determine if we have had truth given to us. We must accept that truth given by another. If it comes from "within", we really have to wonder if it is objective truth or not. There seems to be a fine line on what is truth and what is not. That is why I rely on another source - which I believe is guided by God - rather than from myself.

I agree with you that the source of truth does not come from me, but rather from the Spirit. It seems to me that our approaches are not completely different. Without meaning offense, I see the Catholic approach to getting truth as just including a "middleman". Ours doesn't, but we do use other teachings if we find them consistent with scripture. We just aren't bound by the view of another.

We would both agree that each of us is capable of botching our interpretation of a verse or another interpretation of the verse. Even with an explanation, we can still arrive at a wrong conclusion. Church Fathers have made mistakes. For that reason, I just see there being more danger in putting other, fallible humans in between me and God for authority. You rely on God and the Church, I rely on God and the Bible.

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

Thanks for putting a lens on the "lens" idea. :)

Our respective religious communities' continued separation should be enough proof to show that men do not come to the same ideas about God by merely reading a book. What is needed is a living, teaching authority that protects the SENSE of what the Book was meant to teach.

Not to be flippant, but one side reads the book, and the other side reads the book and adds other stuff. The difference is whether it is OK to add other stuff.

Consider our own nation's Constitution. The Founding Fathers felt that it could not be protected on its own merits, so they instituted a living body to protect its meaning - the Supreme Court. It is their job to interpret the Constitution's meaning and apply it to today's problems. They haven't done a wonderful job, frankly. But it isn't guided by the Holy Spirit, which is what Christ promised His Church.

As I was reading this, I thought you were heading off a cliff, but you made a nice save. :) I agree that the SCOTUS has made some terrible decisions over time, and that's what worries me so much about putting faith and authority in other men, about God. I suppose it comes down to whether the hierarchy really does have a special power of insight, wisdom, faith, and authority (passed down to hierarchy of future generations using man's will in cooperation) that us regular folks do not have.

Me: "And, if we needed any of those things, I suppose God would have included them in the Bible."

Why? If the future Scriptures were meant to be so determinative for future Christians, why didn't Christ (God) commission the Apostles to write new Scripture?

You know I'm not going there! :) God doesn't need this sorry sinner to give Him advice. My comment was only based on the old platitude: "The Bible gives us everything we need to know, not everything we want to know."

The History of Christian expansion, especially the first 50 years, was almost strictly WITHOUT the New Testament. Remember, Christ commissioned a body of men to teach and preach what He taught - promising them that the Holy Spirit would protect them from falsely teaching His doctrine. He never mentions ANYTHING about a future Scripture, or to even WRITE a Scripture for Christians to follow.

Yes, because it wasn't written yet. :) I don't think we can know (or, I don't know) whether Jesus said anything about a future scripture. But, if we believe that scripture was God-breathed, then it must have been the intent of God that it be written. And so it was.

Me: "If a cult started ordaining openly gay Bishops, then I would question whether they are worshiping the true God. :)"

I agree, but to be honest, WHO makes the decision when a "group" has "crossed the line" of what is considered Christian?

Ultimately, it must be God. And, if I see any church openly condoning or promoting obvious sin, then that's all I need to know for myself. God will sort it out in the end.

[Forest Keeper]

I understand that the Pats vs. Broncos analogy is imperfect, but it does the job insofar as it shows that when, -- either for reasons of insufficient power (Pats) or infinite love (God), -- the outcome Pats or God did not wish for, happen, then you cannot say that Pats, or God, caused the outcome.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that if, for whatever reason He had, God wanted the Pats to win, but since they didn't, then God couldn't have caused the loss?

BTW, I fully believe that God fixes football games. Take that Steeler game. (The Steelers are my favorite team outside of my home team [Rams].) Remember that 4th quarter INTERCEPTION by Troy Palamuanoluaamonoa (The HAIR guy!)? When the judges were unjust, the people of Steeler nation cried out to the Lord, "Please deliver us!". And God heard their cries and was concerned, and took pity on them. So God sent a plague of chokenness upon Mike Vanderjagt, that he might sorely miss his intended path. And so it was that he strayed to the right and thus gave up his reward. The Lord, being always faithful, delivered His people. :)

[HarleyD]

Do Muslims live by faith in Christ?

Right now this is what the Catholics are telling me. "It doesn't matter if you believe in the Lord Jesus just so long as you have faith in something." What utter nonsense.

If they truly lived by faith they would believe in the Lord Jesus.

[HarleyD]

No, many believe what has been taught to them. That's why Dion is hesitant to call you heretics as this is the belief system you have been brought up in and honestly believe in as the truth.

Sorry, but I wasn't brought up under this belief system. I only found out about it 3 years ago. For over 30 years I held what I now know is the Arminian view simply because I didn't know there was another perspective.

You'll never explain most of the scriptures under your Arminian soteriology. However, that doesn't matter to you. You're Catholic and the Church will tell you what to believe.

[Forest Keeper]

To add to Kosta's words: I can see a distinct difference between the beliefs expressed by you FK, Harley and Marlowe ...

Frankly, I can't remember a single post by Harley in this whole thread that I disagreed with, and I've read them all. If any of my posts were inconsistent with Harley, then that is solely on me. I began this thread with a set of very strong views, but they were unorganized and without structure. This thread has helped me tremendously to better that situation. So, I've been learning and developing all the way through.

As for Marlowe, I believe he openly says that he is not a monergist, so yes, there will definitely be differences there. But, so what? That we (or other Protestants) disagree on some things doesn't translate to both (all) of us being wrong on everything. Catholics disagree on plenty of things. Because of your number, you even get global news coverage on it. :)

There are clearly a number of Catholics (AND Protestants) who have little problem with the homosexual agenda, or who say that abortion is fine - even Catholic (AND Protestant) elected leaders in our own country. Clearly, this is against the authority. Are these people still Catholics? I would have trouble replying to posts from these people too, compared to the beliefs of the Catholics/Orthodox on this thread. I don't think it's fair to call out Protestants for inconsistency, when there is plenty of that to go around.

I think Baptist groups vary quite a bit as well.

Since I'm a Southern Baptist, I must say that I haven't seen this within the Southern Baptist community. Do you mean differences between "Baptists" and "Southern Baptists" and "Reformed Baptists", etc.?

[jo kus]

Both East and West define things as needed. They differ in the precise way they do it (councils/papacy in differing relationship) and in frequency, at least for the last 1500 years. The West has done more defining recently (measured in centuries), but only because the West has had chronic challenges (less obedience, one might say, more stubborn invincible ignorance etc.), more church-splitting controversies requiring resolution. Definitions simply are determinations of the authentic Christian teaching made by the proper authorities to maintain unity.

While it is true that the East and West have found the need to define matters, depending on the heretical teachings of the time, I don't find a parallel to the Scholastic school that followed St. Thomas Aquinas. Wasn't the distortions and extreme speculations part of Luther's rebellion? The only thing I can think of that is similar in the East is the Alexandrian school of thought in interpreting Scripture that took analogy to the extreme - which seemed to be taken up in some Medievel thought in the West. I wonder if the East ever speculated on how many angels could fit onto the head of a needle?! Such matters had little to do with defining what we believe. But perhaps you are correct, and given the political and religious backgrounds in our respective regions, the roles might have been reversed.

Regards

[HarleyD]

"...but I will say that He did not pre-ordain sin..."

Nonsense. It states so in the scriptures...

Act 4:27-28 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

God the Father predestined the death of His Son. Man wickedly carried out the very sin that God predestined. And it doesn't say that God "foreknew" men would kill His Son. Christ laid down His life. It was His choice to the praise of His glory.