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

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

[Zionist Conspirator]

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

LOL!!! There's at least one other person to notice this. ;O)

Hey! There's two of us!!!

Actually, I think all Protestants recognize this on some level. However, Catholics/Orthodox seem completely blind to this fact.

[Forest Keeper]

God did not ordain the fall of Adam because the scripture does not say He did, but rather describes the episode and indicates the opposite. Since the sin is associated with evil, and Adam sinned, God causing sin would have been an evil God. This is the intellectual proof that He did not; but like I said, I don't need to get intellectual over it because the scripture tells us it was Adam's free will.

It looks like you are saying that if someone has free will (Adam), then God could not have ordained the fall. Plenty of scripture has been posted showing that God ordains and is in control of all things. So, all we can do is agree to disagree on interpretation.

You also seem to equate ordination with causation, and I do not think they are the same. This is much more tricky. I think it makes perfect sense that God ordains bad things, even sin on the part of a person, without being the author of sin. Did not God ordain the death of Jesus? But no one thinks God killed His own Son, right? So, how do these two ideas fit together? Here is an excerpt from Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained that Evil Be? [Jonathan Edwards on the Decrees of God] by John Piper:

"2.1 Is God the Author of Sin? Edwards answers, "If by 'the author of sin,' be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing . . . . it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin." But, he argues, willing that sin exist in the world is not the same as sinning. God does not commit sin in willing that there be sin. God has established a world in which sin will indeed necessarily come to pass by God's permission, but not by his "positive agency."

. . .

"He [Edwards] uses the analogy of the way the sun brings about light and warmth by its essential nature, but brings about dark and cold by dropping below the horizon. "If the sun were the proper cause of cold and darkness," he says, "it would be the fountain of these things, as it is the fountain of light and heat: and then something might be argued from the nature of cold and darkness, to a likeness of nature in the sun." In other words, "sin is not the fruit of any positive agency or influence of the most High, but on the contrary, arises from the withholding of his action and energy, and under certain circumstances, necessarily follows on the want of his influence."

"Thus in one sense God wills that what he hates come to pass, as well as what he loves. Edwards says,"

"God may hate a thing as it is in itself, and considered simply as evil, and yet . . . it may be his will it should come to pass, considering all consequences. . . . God doesn't will sin as sin or for the sake of anything evil; though it be his pleasure so to order things, that he permitting, sin will come to pass; for the sake of the great good that by his disposal shall be the consequence. His willing to order things so that evil should come to pass, for the sake of the contrary good, is no argument that he doesn't hate evil, as evil: and if so, then it is no reason why he may not reasonably forbid evil as evil, and punish it as such."

"This is a fundamental truth that helps explain some perplexing things in the Bible, namely, that God often expresses his will to be one way, and then acts to bring about another state of affairs. God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that his people be hated in Egypt (Genesis 12:3; Psalm 105:25 – "He turned their hearts to hate his people."). He hardens Pharaoh's heart, but commands him to let his people go (Exodus 4:21; 5:1; 8:1). He makes plain that it is sin for David to take a military census of his people, but he ordains that he do it (2 Samuel 24:1; 24:10). He opposes adultery, but ordains that Absalom should lie with his father's wives (Exodus 20:14; 2 Samuel 12:11). He forbids rebellion and insubordination against the king, but ordained that Jeroboam and the ten tribes should rebel against Rehoboam (Romans 13:1; 1 Samuel 15:23; 1 Kings 12:15-16). He opposes murder, but ordains the murder of his Son (Exodus 20:13; Acts 4:28). He desires all men to be saved, but effectually calls only some (1 Timothy 2:4; 1 Corinthians 1:26-30; 2 Timothy 2:26)."

"What this means is that we must learn that God wills things in two different senses. The Bible demands this by the way it speaks of God's will in different ways. Edwards uses the terms "will of decree" and "will of command." Edwards explains:"

"[God's] will of decree [or sovereign will] is not his will in the same sense as his will of command [or moral will] is. Therefore it is not difficult at all to suppose that the one may be otherwise than the other: his will in both senses is his inclination. But when we say he wills virtue, or loves virtue or the happiness of his creature; thereby is intended that virtue or the creature's happiness, absolutely and simply considered, is agreeable to the inclination of his nature. His will of decree is his inclination to a thing not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with reference to the universality of things. So God, though he hates a things as it is simply, may incline to it with reference to the universality of things."

[kosta50]

Because I was not made perfect

Our ancestral parents were made good. We bear the consequences of their sin, but we are not guilty. A child born of an alcoholic mother is born damaged for life, but does no more than bear witness to its mother's sin, and has to live with it having done nothing to deserve it.

[Forest Keeper]

Then I assume all the males in your church are circumcised?

That could very well be, but then it's been years since I've checked. I assume your point is to attack the passage in Matthew 5. I would ask what "until everything is accomplished" means to you, and if you believe in the New Covenant? I was using the passage to prove that Jesus Himself plainly stated that there were no errors in the OT, contrary to what yours and Kosta's positions appear to be. Jesus defends the OT, and quoted from it often. Then, He used His unique authority to complete its teachings. I'm going to stick with the view of Jesus on this one.

[Cvengr]

In the eyes of Perfect Holiness, wherever He encounters unrighteousness, He demands perfect Justice. Only through faith in Christ do any of us have an opportunity to escape the condemnation of Him for our unrighteousness. We stand condemned already because of our lack of separation of spirit from Him inherited from Adam.

[annalex]

It is an offering, but not a payment.

The theology of atonement is something I want to explore at some depth between us, Catholics and Orthodox, soon.

[stripes1776]

Then I assume all the males in your church are circumcised?

Forest Keeper: That could very well be, but then it's been years since I've checked. I assume your point is to attack the passage in Matthew 5. I would ask what "until everything is accomplished" means to you, and if you believe in the New Covenant? I was using the passage to prove that Jesus Himself plainly stated that there were no errors in the OT, contrary to what yours and Kosta's positions appear to be. Jesus defends the OT, and quoted from it often. Then, He used His unique authority to complete its teachings. I'm going to stick with the view of Jesus on this one.

What I am asking is which part of Old Testament law do you follow, and which do you ignore? The Old Testament is clear that males must be circumcised. Also eating pork is forbidden. There are many other laws in the Old Testament that most Christians do not observe.

So which do you observe, and which do you choose to ignore, and why?

[HarleyD]

The frustration you're experiencing isn't with me. The frustration is with the simple fact that there is no way to rationally explain how we "cooperate" with God if one truly understand God gives us our faith and everything else. If God gives us faith, then we have faith.

The only way Jonah could have repented was if God granted it. The only way Jonah could cooperate was if God granted it. The only way Jonah could have had faith was if God granted it. Jonah's own will (and ours) are controlled by God.

The Orthodox are right to dismiss the Council of Orange's statement because it is not what they believe and as far as I can determined never have. They believe in man's free will and all that entails-denial of original sin, lost of salvation, etc. They, at least, are consistent with their historical beliefs. However this is not what the west believed and is highlighted in the Council of Orange's statements.

[annalex]

Jewish arguments

I take it, you mean the argument from historicity? The difference is, the Protestants claim the same inheritance of Christ as we do; it is then proper to point them to what Christ actually taught the early Church. But our relationship with the Jews is more distant as we do not claim to belong to the same religion.

[Cvengr]

God indeed gives us our faith. He also created us with free will or volition, so that when we quench the Spirit, he no longer is free to continue our sanctification and further our faith or doctrine or thinking within our spirit until we return to Him by turning away from disobedience and returning to Him and confessing our sin to Him for His grace to forgive us and work again upon our soul, and our spirit.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

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

Now that you mention it that's a pretty good summation.

[annalex]

from your point of view, when there is an apparent conflict, the plain meaning of scripture is transformed into being consistent with these outside teachings

When we discussed Romans 5:12 the context I gave you were three preceding chapters and the fact that "all" is transformed into "many" a few verses down. It would be entirely proper to explain scripture with tradition -- that is the the only way, generally speaking, -- but in conversations with Protestants I do not do that, and I did not do so in this case.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I take it, you mean the argument from historicity? The difference is, the Protestants claim the same inheritance of Christ as we do; it is then proper to point them to what Christ actually taught the early Church.

I refer to your arguments against antinomianism. You may use Protestant antinomian arguments against the Torah, but you have to adopt Jewish arguments to defend the validity of your "new law" as well as the concept of this life as a probationary state during which we acquire merits and de-merits, being judged according to the totality after death. What, you don't see this? No, of course you don't. Silly me for asking!

But our relationship with the Jews is more distant as we do not claim to belong to the same religion.

You don't gotta tell me. John Hagee must run you bonkers. Unfortunately, most American Jews still prefer Catholics and Orthodox because of a common urban/immigrant/minority experience, as well as the old "the devil you know" dictum.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Now that you mention it that's a pretty good summation.

Thanks. I've long said that Catholicism/Orthodoxy preaches Protestantism to the Jews and Judaism to the Protestants. And the thing is, everyone can see this but them!

[annalex]

6. The ladder of old which the great Patriarch saw, my soul, is a model of mounting by action and ascent by knowledge. So, if you wish to live in activity, knowledge and contemplation, be renewed. (Genesis 28:12; Romans 12:2; Titus 3:5)

7. Because of his crying need the Patriarch endured the scorching heat of the day, and he bore the frost of the night, daily making gains, shepherding, struggling, slaving, in order to win two wives. (Genesis 29:16-30; 31-40)

8. By the two wives understand action and direct knowledge in contemplation: Leah as action, for she had many children, and Rachel as knowledge, which is obtained by much labour. For without labours, my soul, neither action nor contemplation will achieve success.

9. Watch, my soul! Be courageous like the great Patriarchs, that you may acquire activity and awareness, and be a mind that sees God, and may reach in contemplation the innermost darkness, and be a great trader. (Genesis 32:28; Luke 19:13-15)

10. The great Patriarch, by begetting the twelve Patriarchs, mystically set up for you, my soul, a ladder of active ascent, having wisely offered his children as rungs, and his steps as ascents.

All we really need to know about free will.

*** Dr. Eckleburg, the above is a condensed version suitable for placement on a refrigerator door or viewing through Web TV

[Forest Keeper]

FK, you are in denial that the OT existed in oral form for at least 1,600 years before it was reduced to writing (around 500 BC).

But Moses wasn't alive in 500 BC, so I'm not sure what you are talking about, unless you don't think Moses was a scribe of the OT. In any event, if God had intended for the faith to only be in oral form, then sure, He could have arranged its security. But He didn't. He provided for the written word. That's what Jesus quoted. I'm not aware of Jesus quoting oral tradition. That is some evidence of anywhere from a preference to an exclusivity.

[annalex]

Paul talks about reconciliation

The following scriptures refer to confession and absolution:

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity

(1 John 1)

16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

(James 5)

7 Why doth this man speak thus? he blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins, but God only?

(Mark 2; also Matthew 9)

21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

(John 20)

[HarleyD]

He also created us with free will or volition, so that when we quench the Spirit, he no longer is free to continue our sanctification and further our faith or doctrine or thinking within our spirit until we return to Him

"For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives. It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?" (Heb 12:6-7)

God gives us our faith according to His measure. If He has received us He will sanctify us through His discipline.

[annalex]

It looks like you are saying that if someone has free will (Adam), then God could not have ordained the fall.

I am saying that one can do semantics over "ordain but not cause" all day long, but they won't be scriptural. Adam and all the rest of us are shown in the Scripture to have free will, and God is never shown in the Scripture ordering anything evil, even as He, of course, created all agents of evil. Beyond that is extrascriptural speculation and being not Calvinist I do not go there.

[Cvengr]

Those who continue to rebel in post salvation sin, even through divine discipline, are not further sanctified until they return to Him.