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

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

[Forest Keeper]

This passage?

"And the child was three years old, and Joachim said: Invite the daughters of the Hebrews that are undefiled ...

Yes, that's the one. You can obviously guess where my mischievous little mind is going here. :)

The image of little "Panagitsa" dancing before Almighty God is so wonderful!

That is a very cute image. And, thanks for the representation of Mary as a child. I have never seen anything like it before.

[Forest Keeper]

[On Mary being given grace at age three:] FK, in my previous post I said I doubted if this was the same grace Gabriel mentions later. I think I was wrong. The words of the chant from the Feast of the Entrance of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple answer the question:

"All the powers of Heaven were amazed when they beheld the Holy Spirit take up its abode in thee."

This line from the prayer is possibly the foundation of what Alex was referring to in 2801 when he wrote:

"Our Lady never had an inclination to sin. She never struggled. This is consistent with her serene image of the icons. She is a woman in paradise, unlike a saint who has a life time of struggle to get to paradise. ...

In that case, here is where my "mischievous little mind" kicks in. Before Mary was three years old, she was two and one-half years old. I personally have been a father to two children of that age. They are able to make decisions on some things. They are especially able to disrespect their parents. I KNOW it! :) Therefore, my children were able to sin, (regardless of whether they would have been held accountable if, God forbid, something terrible had happened to either of them at that age). If Mary wasn't protected until the age of three, how can it be that she was sinless?

[Kolokotronis]

2 Samuel 6:14

Seems this sort of dance ran in the family!

"Come, let us extol David the king, the grandparent of God; for from him sprang out a stem, namely the Virgin, and from that did shine forth Christ the Flower, renewing the creation of Adam and Eve from corruption; for he is compassionate."

[Kolokotronis]

"If Mary wasn't protected until the age of three, how can it be that she was sinless?"

Because three year olds, though astonishing practioners of free will, cannot form the intent to hit or miss the Mark.

[Forest Keeper]

I would also point out that the same logic that has been used earlier in this thread, namely that "Matthew should have known" about the sibling issue one way or another -- this same logic should apply to the whole of Church tradition. ... One would expect that if the Apostles knew that Christ had blood (half) brothers, this inner tradition of the Church would have been strong enough that the tradition of Mary being a perpetual virgin would never have arisen.

Firstly, I do disagree with your analysis about James and John because I don't think James was there for Jesus to ask. John is the only disciple who is Biblically supported to have actually witnessed the crucifixion. However, with regard to your above, intellectually, I have to concede that you make a valid point. I honestly don't know how or when the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity became a part of infallible Church tradition.

There is of course also the question of why, from the earliest times of post New Testament Christian literature, she is referred to as "the Virgin Mary." If she had gone on to have sexual relations and bearing multiple other children, I find it hard to see why she would have received that title in the Church. ...

Now here you lose me. :) The whole point of (what I would call) "The Immaculate Conception" was that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth. That made it divine in nature, and different from anything else ... ever. Her virginity defined the holiness of the event. That is certainly worthy of Church recognition, absolutely independently of whether she continued a normal relationship with her husband after the birth of Christ.

[Kolokotronis]

Maybe they had fallen on hard times or +Joseph had put his retirement savings in the 1st century equivalent of tech stocks...like some of us did in the 20th! :)

Seriously, who knows? The important thing is He wasn't born in a palace contrary to then popular expectation.

[kosta50]

You believe in the infallibility of non-Biblical writers, assuming they are accepted by the Church

Who are these "infallible" people I believe in? I trust that those who were ordained by the Apostles taught the same Faith the Apostles taught them, and that the trust of the Apostles was an infallible proof that the Faith of their successors is the true Faith and is interpreted correctly. And, that they could do so before the NT was put together.

So, if we compare what the people such as +Ignatius and +Polycarp taught and wrote, both of whom were disciples of Apostles (+Paul and +John), and what their successors taught and what we still preach, I have a high degree of confidence that it was as close to the true Faith as it gets.

In your case, I just have to trust your claim that yours is an equally valid, correct and providential teaching, even if it is diametrically opposed to that known to the Church from the beginning.

That is a lot of to accept, FK. That is the ultimate in the "me-me-me" way of thinking. Protestantism is a man-made "church," based on individual interpretations of the Bible, which was put together by the the Church, after much human intervention. You trust that the Church must have known what it was doing when it collected the books it deemed inspired into the Bible you believe in, but you don't believe the Church knows how to interpret the same inspired books!

There is no attack here, FK. Just bewilderment at how man can convince himself to be infallible. You expect me to believe that you are guided by the Holy Spirit, because you believe so, but that the Church is guided by fallible men who are not? Based on what? What do you have to offer other than your own conviction? The opinions of other fallible men who agree with you?

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "Does this mean that the Father existed before Christ and the Spirit, and that the Father created them?

They are not creatures, FK. Let's make that clear. As regards the Son and the Spirit, the Father is the source and cause of everything and all, including the divinity, but in the case of the divinity we cannot speak in terms of time.

Where does "creatures" come from? :) I'm just trying to figure out if you think the trinity has always been the trinity, or if you think there was first the Father only, who created the Son and Spirit to form the trinity.

That being the limitation, we know that if something is begotten, it must have a source and cause. If something proceeds from something, it must have a source and cause. God the Father has neither the source nor cause. He is Existence, and everything that exists is from Him, including the Son and the Spirit.

I'm interpreting this to mean you agree with the latter statement of my above. Is that correct? I would respectfully disagree about "begotten" because I see it as referring to the "man" Jesus, who was obviously "begotten". I would say that "The Son" was in full existence well before He was "begotten".

[Forest Keeper]

So, now you are using some church as the source of your beliefs?

Horrors!!! :)

I asked for your idea of Trinity, not some institution's. Isn't that what Protestants are all about -- rejecting any and all "church authority" and relying only on their individual interpretation of the Scripture?

No, that's not what Protestants are about at all. We also respect those who have gone before us, just as you do. We just put all of ours to the test of God's word first, without changing the meaning of the word to conform with the desired tradition. That appears to be a difference we have.

BTW, the London Baptist Confession is pretty much what the Apostolic Churches teach, so I have personally no problem with it (as far as I read -- that is most of it).

So you slam me for putting up something you have no problem with generally? SHEESH! :) I can't win.

We never believed He was 50:50 anything; He is fully divine and fully human, a 100:100 ratio.

I never meant to imply that I thought you believed in 50-50. I just said what I said to distinguish between what any other random person "out there" might think. It was not directed at you all. At least we agree anyway. :)

[Forest Keeper]

Hello neighbor, I'm right below you in Missouri. Thank you for the kind words. This thread has been a wonderful experience for me. I have learned so much from some very nice people on all sides.

[jo kus]

Once I appropriate that word, then I can be assured.

How do you know you have appropriated it so as to guarantee that you are of the elect? I don't see how anything we do ensures that.

Regards

[jo kus]

The whole point of (what I would call) "The Immaculate Conception" was that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth. That made it divine in nature, and different from anything else ... ever. Her virginity defined the holiness of the event. That is certainly worthy of Church recognition, absolutely independently of whether she continued a normal relationship with her husband after the birth of Christ.

The Immaculate Conception is the dogmatic teaching in the Roman Catholic Church that Mary was born without original sin and remained sinless throughout her life. It doesn't consider her virginity.

Regards

[jo kus]

I'm interpreting this to mean you agree with the latter statement of my above. Is that correct? I would respectfully disagree about "begotten" because I see it as referring to the "man" Jesus, who was obviously "begotten". I would say that "The Son" was in full existence well before He was "begotten".

No, begotten refers to the Logos before He became flesh. Begotten has nothing to do with the Incarnation of our Lord, but tries to explain how Wisdom came from the Father before time began.. There never was a time where the Fathere existed but the Son did not. To say otherwise would be to stray into Arianism.

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "We all agree that God created satan, right? He didn't just appear out of nothing. satan later became evil itself. Could God at any time have snapped His fingers and prevented satan from turning evil? Of course. ..."

God created the angel by the name of Lucifer who rebelled against God and fell from his "rank." Unlike humans, angels -- who are created as servants of God -- cannot be redeemed. Their fall is eternal.

You don't address my point. God COULD have prevented this if He really was omnipotent, right? But He chose not to. Knowing that you must agree with me on this, I was trying to point out to you that it is unfair for you to say that my side believes that God created evil and causes evil. We don't.

In fact your entire theory that God doesn't allow those who believe to fall is proven wrong exactly with the fallen angels, for they surely believe in God, yet they fell.

You are using the concept of "belief" completely out of context and you know it, Kosta. "Belief of" and "belief IN and acceptance IN" are completely different concepts. Of course satan believes that God exists. Are you making a serious argument or are you just "pulling my lariat"? :)

[HarleyD]

FK, as Harley knows, the whole issue of monergism and synergism were never really issues in the Eastern Church. It was, and remains, pretty much a Western issue.

That is correct. When you say "...you are surely expressing belief in predestination of the sort which The Church rejects..." as in post #2755 this is not an accurate statement. The eastern Church rejected it-not the western church until later. The eastern church was synergistic. Not the western church. Later the Roman Catholics abandoned their monergistic beliefs. Protestants started around 1650 and it is almost all gone.

Similarly, the only Western Father I am aware of who even arguably held that position was Blessed Augustine. In this he was at odds with the other Fathers.

I wouldn't state that Augustine was at odds with the other Fathers. Augustine himself states that Cyprian taught him. Much of Augustine's concept was formally adopted 100 years after his dead at the Council of Orange (which you also minimize) in response to the semi-Pelagius of John Cassian (a saint held in high regards by the eastern church). In 600AD some western Pope ??? kept both synergism and monergism doctrines in the Church. Big mistake. Monergism was formally kicked out as a belief at the Council of Trent but adopted by the Protestants in the Reformation. Many Protestants are now abandoning the monergism belief for synergism.

To state monergism is a "new" innovation is simply to ignore the history of the Church. It is not any "newer" than synergism. It was also the main thought of the western Church. Now you have all this "grace of God, yeah but..." business.

I would also add that I can trace the synergistic belief back to those who were label heretics of the church. When I trace monergism back the only argument I get is "Augustine didn't know what he was talking about."

[Agrarian]

The Immaculate Conception does not refer to the virgin birth of Christ, but rather is a uniquely Roman Catholic teaching. It teaches that the grace of Christ's sacrifice on the cross was "preveniently" given to Mary at the time of *her* conception in the womb of Anna.

It thus teaches that Mary was born without original sin of any kind and furthermore was specially filled with the Holy Spirit from the time of her conception -- filled with so much grace that she had and has "extra" grace that she can dispense to the rest of us if we pray to her and ask for it, etc.

The Orthodox Church does not accept this teaching. We believe that Mary was conceived in the same way that any other person was. We believe that the "original sin" that man is born with is the tendency to corruption, sin, and death. We believe that Mary was born with all of those things just as we are. We do not believe that a man is born with original guilt such that his default setting is to go to hell, but rather believe that we sin because we choose to, giving in to the innate corruption and weakness within us. It is our sins that we actively commit that turn our faces towards hell and the devil. We need the grace of Christ to be forgiven for all of our sins.

What we do believe is that from the earliest moments of cognition in her life, Mary chose to turn her face toward God. The Church teaches that she was born into a highly devout immediate and extended family, and that she was reared in purity. Someone once said that the whole history of the world, the whole history of that golden thread that runs through the Old Testament, is to tell us the story of how all of history came to a point with this family, this couple, this girl. The girl who would change the world because of her purity and obedience to God.

In other words, the Orthodox Church believes that Mary had no spiritual tools at her disposal other than the ones we have. This is what makes her sinlessness so remarkable, and what made her a worthy vessel for bringing Christ into the world. It is also what makes her an example for us that we can follow. If she was a "superwoman" filled with so much grace that it was impossible for her to sin, we can hardly use her as a model for our own lives, can we?

The fact that she was subject to the effects of original sin is borne out by the fact that she grew old and died just like everyone else. I would note that there are some Catholics who believe that she did not die, but was assumed into heaven without having died. This is a logical outgrowth from the idea of the Immaculate Conception -- if she was not subject to original sin... how could she die?

[Forest Keeper]

God rarely mediated "directly" with His people. Invariably, He did it through a prophet, a patriarch, the Apostles, and Jesus Christ - who is the fullness of God's mediation to mankind. We don't see that after the first generation, God suddenly removed His special care and coming to His people.

I'm not talking about burning bush experiences here. :) I'm talking about everyday things like answers to prayer. You have faced tough decisions in your life and you have prayed about them. Haven't you felt "led" to do one thing over another? I see it as the same general idea with scriptural interpretation. God nudges me toward the place He wants me to be for a given time. He won't point me to error, but there are different levels of understanding that I can handle at different points in my sanctification.

Is there any Scripture that says that Christ no longer gives His Church the power to continue Christ's teachings as seen in Matthew 28:20 after the first generation? This seems to be a Protestant addition to Scripture here.

Well, the only scripture that could possibly apply isn't very nice, so I won't even go there. :) My issue is with reliability.

But please understand, we don't look at Protestants as outside of the Church or going to hell. We call you "separated brothers", outside of the visible communion of the Church, but still a part of it.

I know you have talked about this before, and you have talked about invincible ignorance. After reading a certain number of posts from multiple posters that give a growing impression over and over, I think I just need some occasional reassurance. :)

They [mortal sins] are not common, especially among those who take their walk seriously. To be a mortal sin, it must be a serious offense, one must KNOW it is serious and can separate us from God, and one must DO IT ANYWAYS. How often do you think that happens among serious Christians?

I don't know. I guess it depends on what "serious" means, and what constitutes separation from God. I vaguely remember someone posting on this a long time ago. My sketchy memory tells me it had to do with the seven deadly sins. Is there any connection?

[kosta50]

Where does "creatures" come from?

That which is created is a creature. That which is divine is uncreated. I am beginning to believe you are rather new at this, since you are not familiar with much of the standard theological vocabulary.

I would respectfully disagree about "begotten" because I see it as referring to the "man" Jesus, who was obviously "begotten". I would say that "The Son" was in full existence well before He was "begotten"

If that is what you believe, you are not a Christian. Jesus is Incarnate; the Son is begotten from the Father. You are making up your own theology as you go along, FK, that much is obvious.

[kosta50]

if she was not subject to original sin... how could she die?

Agrarian, that was very nice, and it simply reinforces what I had said (less elegantly) earlier. However, one might ask the same question of why would Jesus die, for He was free of any sin. The answer I got in the past on this question was simply: because He chose to.

[kosta50]

God COULD have prevented this if He really was omnipotent, right? But He chose not to

He chose to give intelligent creatures freedom and with that freedom the uncertainty of their decision. The uncertainty is only ours because we don't know where our choices lead us. God knows what choices we will (freely) make. Freedom ensures that those who come to God do so on their own free will. Forced "love" is no love, so unless we come to Him on our own, and with His help, we are captives of His will, and therefore not free, but rather forced.

Freedom entails the possibility to sin, but also the possibility to repent. Lucifer chose to sin, and so did Adam and Eve. So do you and so do I. But we also have the freedom to repent. Prodigal son story is an example of that. God lets you live and will take you back if you come to Him on your own and ask Him to take you back.

In your theology, God creates evil for His own purpose -- whatever that might be. Because evil exists, it must be because God wills it to exist, so He is the source and cause of evil as well as of everything else.

As for your acrobatics about the verb "believe" -- Scriptures simply say that those who believe will be saved.