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

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

[Forest Keeper]

Miracles still happen today - but we are not required to believe in them.

You are if you want to make someone a saint! :) This happens all the time, so you must hold many recent miracles as genuine.

I never said I didn't believe in the Virgin Birth - I said science cannot prove or disprove it. It is a statement of faith, which, as a Catholic, I accept.

Since they did not have in vitro technology, why can't science disprove a virgin birth 2000 years ago?

[kosta50]

You believe that the autographs are the only true Scriptures, and that all else is human contaminant

Did God not decide to drown the whole human lot because of "contamination?" Did Adam and Eve not get banished from the Garden because they contaminated God's Creation that he made good? Did God not declare a New Covenant because the Old one was not "without fault?" Whose fault was it? Not God's. Did the Hebrews not go back and forth to their pagan gods after their Exodus? Did they not reject Christ? Did not +Paul sent epistles to "contaminated" Christians as early as 60 AD (27 years after Christ died)? Did not +Ireneaeus have to fight a Herculean battle with heresies as early as the second century AD? Did not the Church sweat 300years to remove false "sctriptures" from circulation? Did not the Church call eight Ecumenical Councils in a matter of 500 years to deal with "contaminations" (heresies)? Do we not have different Bibles?

Where is there evidence that there is anything humans do that is eternal, unchaining and not subject to decay? Do we not go to repeated confessions and confess the same errors over and over even though we may sincerely repent of them? How can dirty hands not soil clean linen? Do we not believe that only the Ever-Virgin Mary was without sin?

How can we assume that omissions, additions, deletions, discrepancies and other biblical inconsistencies as being of no consequence? Can we really say we believe with anything but imperfect knowledge? Surely, Christ did not deliver imperfect faith. We made it imperfect.

Condemning the Church for losing the "originals" means that you think that the writers of Scripture knew at the time that they were writing Holy Scripture. I doubt very much that any of them had any idea of the kind

I am sure we could say that in their humility they accepted their task but did not boast about it. +John knew what he was writing. He even says that Christ commanded him to do so. +Paul knew what happened to him and what mission he was chosen to do for God. Did Moses know what he was writing? I would say yes, he knew. Surely, the Gospels were written to convey a message of the New Covenant. They were not written as a historical account, as Josephus would have written about it.

The Gospels were not controversial because they were narratives. +Paul's Epistles were already interpretations. As theology based on the New Covenant developed, so did heresies, differences, disagreements, additions, deletions, choosing MT over LXX, diverging Christology, rejection of CHalcedon, etc. All the way to the present day, Agrarian.

Last Sunday, my OCA Church proudly served bagels with cheese and egg sandwiches. When I, after first thanking them for their effort, politely reminded the kitchen volunteers that cheese and eggs are animal products and that we are half-way through Great Lent (the priest calls in only Lent, however), I was told "we are not monks." Yes, Agrarian, our faith is heavily contaminated and it is a real wonder that it even survived this long.

[kosta50]

God didn't need to reveal science to tell us how much He loved us

Exactly.

...well, that's not in the Protestant bible, sorry, it's in 2 Maccabees...

Right again.

[Forest Keeper]

When he (Galilleo) showed that, by brilliant observations of Venus, that it was the Sun that didn't move, he was accused of "vehement heresy" and -- thanks only to his advanced age and fame -- sentenced to house arrest, having been exhonorated by the Catholic Church only in the 1992, after 350 years of official censure.

HA! And now we "know" that we do not live in a heliocentric universe, and that the sun does indeed move, it revolves around the Milky Way, which itself is also moving. Cornell University So much for the science before Galileo, so much for some of his science now, and who knows about the future? Every generation thinks its scientists have finally "figured it out". Only God is a sure thing, but you still choose ever changing science in matters of fact.

[Kolokotronis]

"Let us focus on the word "helpful" or "profitable". You and your author are reading it is as "essential"! Look up in your handy Greek Concordance Strong #5624, ophelimos. This word in GREEK is an adjective that means "useful", "helpful", "profitable". Used as a verb, it means "assistance" or "benefit". Nowhere in Vines or my Greek Concordance do I find opheleia or ophelimos used to mean "necessary" or "essential" or "alone". Thus, your author's argument rapidly deflates into nothingness."

He's right, FK. The words have absolutely no connotation of necessity or singularity. That made up translation does fit well with Protestant theology though.

[Forest Keeper]

[Rev. Spurgeon imagining an Arminian prayer:] "Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not-that is the difference between me and them."

Wow, AlbionGirl. This is scary. I have seen all of this on this thread in one form or another. Most of the time, it has been exactly like Spurgeon puts it here. I guess the arguments really don't change all that much over time. Thank you for posting this.

[kosta50]

And now we "know" that we do not live in a heliocentric universe, and that the sun does indeed move, it revolves around the Milky Way, which itself is also moving. Cornell University So much for the science before Galileo, so much for some of his science now, and who knows about the future? Every generation thinks its scientists have finally "figured it out". Only God is a sure thing, but you still choose ever changing science in matters of fact

Well, it's a step ahead of biblical bats being called fowl, or mustard seed being the smallest seed or mustard plant a tree.

Clearly, Christ could not have uttered those words because neither is the mustard seed the smallest nor is the mustard plant a tree. I can understand that the authors of the Gospels didn't know, but Christ of course knew. But the parable is spiritually as profitable today as it was back then.

My point was that people who felt that science was "evil" and "false" accused a brilliant man of "vehement heresy" and anathematized him for 350 years.

The fact is that science continually discovers new things In God's Creation. He made it for us to marvel His creativity, beauty and power. We may not know everything, but what we do know is not a subject to "mystery" or miracle. What science discovers is called progress, FK. The motion of the Sun around the Milky Way's periphery is not the same as saying the earth stands still and all of creation turns around us.

Next time you get sick, please don't call a doctor. In fact, don't even use Internet, or cell phones, or fly by airplanes. Obviously, all of these are scientific "traps" that belie the truth. The truth is, of course, that bats are fowl because the Bible says so, right?

[Agrarian]

"Did God not decide to drown the whole human lot because of "contamination?""

I thought you believed that this was just a fable.

"Did Adam and Eve not get banished from the Garden because they contaminated God's Creation that he made good?"

I thought you believed that this was just a myth.

"Did the Hebrews not go back and forth to their pagan gods after their Exodus?"

I thought that these histories were all just made-up stories and riddled with falsehoods, contradictions, and errors, and that Moses and the Exodus didn't actually happen, according to the modern scholars you put your faith in.

"Did not +Paul sent epistles to "contaminated" Christians as early as 60 AD (27 years after Christ died)?"

Aren't you aware that modern scholarship dates the epistles attributed to Paul as being much later than that, and as having been extensively doctored by the church in subsequent centuries, if not actually concocted out of thin air?

"Did not +Ireneaeus have to fight a Herculean battle with heresies as early as the second century AD?"

St. Irenaeus was naive enough to believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible. Why should you even refer to him?

"Did not the Church sweat 300years to remove false "sctriptures" from circulation?"

What would be the big deal about that, since they are all contaminated and full of human errors and alterations. And what made them false? The Scriptures we do have falsely represent themselves as telling narratives of things that happened, even though you have assured us that probably none of it really happened -- they are just stories of "spiritual truth." Which ones are really the false Scriptures, and why would you care?

"Did not the Church call eight Ecumenical Councils in a matter of 500 years to deal with "contaminations" (heresies)?"

Why would you pay any attention to the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils? They were held and argued by men who actually believed the Scriptures to be true. And why should the decrees of the Councils be reliable and believable if the Scriptures they appealed to are not?

"Do we not believe that only the Ever-Virgin Mary was without sin?"

How on earth could you possibly know such a thing? Is it not more likely that the Church's stories about her are just meant to convey spiritual truth? How do we even know that she even existed? Probably she was just a spiritual story meant to inspire us in some way.

"+John knew what he was writing. He even says that Christ commanded him to do so."

So Christ commanded St. John to write his Gospel? How could that be, since St. John writes about "the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph." We all know that based on modern Biblical scholarship that neither Jacob nor Joseph really existed, and yet St. John doesn't say "according to myth and legend" -- he just states it as a fact. Christ told St. John to lie?

"Did Moses know what he was writing? I would say yes, he knew."

Really? Surely you are aware (as I learned from you) that Moses didn't really exist. You certainly, with your extensive knowledge of Biblical scholarship must know that modern scholars are in full agreement that the books attributed to Moses were not written by him, and that such a man probably never existed. Surely you accept the JEPD theory, if you accept all of the other things modern scholars say about the Old Testament.

"...choosing MT over LXX..."

Why wouldn't you choose the MT? Modern scholarship is united that the LXX is hopelessly corrupt compared to the MT. I'm surprised that you even give the LXX the time of day.

"The Gospels were not controversial because they were narratives."

What do you mean, they weren't controversial? Of course they were. You yourself continually point out that the only way we can believe them is to accept them only as spiritual truth, since we can't rely on the truth of the facts -- even the fact of Christ's bodily resurrection, which may very well be a myth that only is a story about a spiritual truth.

"Last Sunday, my OCA Church proudly served bagels with cheese and egg sandwiches. When I, after first thanking them for their effort, politely reminded the kitchen volunteers that cheese and eggs are animal products and that we are half-way through Great Lent (the priest calls in only Lent, however), I was told "we are not monks." Yes, Agrarian, our faith is heavily contaminated and it is a real wonder that it even survived this long."

So let me get this straight. You will call into question the truth and reliability of the narratives recounted in the Scriptures, and you mock those who treat them as such, calling them ignorant. And yet, you would criticize and judge people (to their face) who eat eggs and cheese during Great Lent -- even when you have made a point about saying that Orthodox fasting guidelines are entirely the creation of men?

[Agrarian]

What annalex is saying, I think, is that just as the Scriptures were not written in a vacuum, they were never interpreted in a vacuum.

The Apostles knew the fullness of the context and understanding in which the NT was written, and they passed that understanding to their followers.

While it is much more that this, Holy Tradition at the very least is the context in which the Scriptures were and are interpreted and understood.

It would never occur to devout Catholics or Orthodox to question things like the Virgin Birth of Christ or the bodily Resurrection of Christ. This is because our tradition is unequivocal on these points -- we know that there is no other way for the Scriptures to be interpreted, not if we want to call ourselves Catholics or Orthodox Christians.

[Forest Keeper]

The reason is that I knew enough of the film to realize that it is not a narrative movie like some others, but rather, exactly as you say, an experience.

Thank you for the story, Alex, and for the artwork. I went and paid to see "The Passion" in the theater twice. (The only other film I can say that about was the original "Star Wars", when I was 11. :)

It was one of the last memorable things I did with my father, who died 5 months later. He was a relatively new Christian at the time, so I am so thankful that we got to do that together. It really was surreal sitting in a packed theater watching this film. It wasn't that nobody talked, it was that nobody moved. And, just as was the case the first time I saw it, that continued after it was over. Even as the credits started rolling, I'd say that less than 10% of the audience made any attempt to get up. We all just sat there, many of us still shedding tears. It was absolutely amazing. I'll never forget it. Even after we all got into the car, it was probably a full 5 minutes of silence before anyone said anything. And in my family, that's saying something. :)

[Forest Keeper]

I think it is obvious from his comments that he [Pope John Paul II] believed the Shroud of Turin to be authentic... but he did not declare it so.

I completely agree, it appears exactly that way. I don't think I've ever seen a contemporary Papal writing before, so it was interesting to see the writing style. Thank you very much for your answer, and nice to meet you. :) Thank you also, Alex, for pinging Swordmaker.

[Forest Keeper]

I went to a Protestant service once. As I remember it, the preacher quoted from the bible a couple or three times and spent the rest of his 45 minute sermon fulminating with his own ideas about what the scripture meant.

I'm sorry you had that experience. I can really only speak for my own church, and it doesn't go that way at all, even if one disagrees with the theology. From my point of view it has always been consistent within itself.

[kosta50]

And yet, you would criticize and judge people (to their face) who eat eggs and cheese during Great Lent -- even when you have made a point about saying that Orthodox fasting guidelines are entirely the creation of men?

Yes, Agrarian, in their face, just as their gesture was. Most people talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. And, again, yes, the fasting guidelines of the Church are a mad-made creation. That would be right, as they say.

I will not grace the rest of your post with an answer. Spiritually, the Bible is real, true and inerrant, just as love is real, but no one has seen it. Your mockery of my faith, simply because it does not fit your pre-fab Orthodoxy, says volumes abut who you really are, and your reply was quite pathetic I must admit. As for me, I shall confess my doubts in peace and seek answers as long as I live.

[jo kus]

You are if you want to make someone a saint! :) This happens all the time, so you must hold many recent miracles as genuine.

Even those I am not REQUIRED to believe. The Church states that there is substantial and reasonable evidence to prove that a miracle took place. But as a Catholic, I am not absolutely required to place my faith in private miracles, even those declared suitable for belief by the faithful. Personally, if the Church has examined such claims suffiiciently, then I would go along with their findings. However, there is always room for some doubt on such matters BEFORE that happens - there are too many phonies out there.

Since they did not have in vitro technology, why can't science disprove a virgin birth 2000 years ago?

How are you going to disprove it? It was not observed by science. All of science's hypothesis, laws and theorums are based on observation. Using observation, they come to a conclusion on what will LIKELY happen in a similar circumstance, either from the past or the future. Since science did not observe and record the Christ's conception, science cannot disprove anything. They base their theories on presumptions of observation of other similar events - which doesn't mean that a unique event could happen that is outside of their observational datum.

Regards

[jo kus]

The words have absolutely no connotation of necessity or singularity. That made up translation does fit well with Protestant theology though.

Thanks for verifying. I was going to "carbon copy" you that post to verify, since I don't speak Greek, but I sent it before I put your name in the "to" line.

Brother in Christ

[jo kus]

"Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself..." (emphasis added for you)

This is scary. I have seen all of this on this thread in one form or another. Most of the time, it has been exactly like Spurgeon puts it here. I guess the arguments really don't change all that much over time. Thank you for posting this.

Thanks for letting us know we have been wasting our time trying to tell you that we don't come to God alone about a thousand times...

If you can't defeat an argument, then belittle the other side and misrepresent their argument, so you can bash the scarecrow all day long and feel good about it. I hope you are feeling better now.

[Forest Keeper]

But the question is - "do all who make the Sinner's Prayer members of the elect"? I agree with what you have said, but that does not lead to the question that I ask.

I do not think that all who say the Sinner's Prayer are of the elect because only God can determine who His elect are. Nothing we can do will change that. Therefore, some who say the prayer are pretenders.

All who follow Christ's voice are not necessarily His sheep. One must persevere and continue to follow His voice. Following it for a few years and then not following His voice does not make you a follower of Christ when Judgment comes.

But that does not seem to match scripture. I would say that the only way it could be possible for anyone to recognize Christ's voice would be through grace. Does this mean that God stops His grace for some, but not others? Or, in the alternative, is God's grace so weak that it can be overridden by man's whim? John 10 does not read like this at all to me. For example:

John 10:8-9 : 8 All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.

Whoever enters will be saved. Therefore, the gate is closed to those who will not be saved. There is no room in Christ's fold for those who are not His sheep. They will not hear His voice because they will never pass through the gate. In addition, if Christ lets those who are not His sheep into His fold for a while, wouldn't that make Him a thief? Shepherds only allow their own sheep into their own pens. One is a thief if he allows other sheep in. Under your system, the analogy completely breaks down here.

John 10:14-15 : 14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. (emphasis added)

Problem number 2. Jesus only lays down His life for His sheep, not the pretend sheep who later leave. Clearly, Jesus lays down His life only for the sheep who KNOW HIM.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I guess the arguments really don't change all that much over time.

Isn't that a striking truth? We read the arguments here on the religion forum and they're surprisingly similar to debates centuries ago.

Either men are rewarded with salvation according to their works or God gives salvation according to His mercy alone.

"And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them." -- Isaiah 42:16

[jo kus]

I do not think that all who say the Sinner's Prayer are of the elect because only God can determine who His elect are. Nothing we can do will change that. Therefore, some who say the prayer are pretenders.

I agree. One could be considered "saved", but I don't define "saved" as being of the elect. Just like I don't define being healed of a sickness as being invunerable to future sickness. I won't ask the follow up question, as then we'd start that awful cycle again...

But that does not seem to match scripture. {One must persevere and continue to follow His voice.} I would say that the only way it could be possible for anyone to recognize Christ's voice would be through grace. Does this mean that God stops His grace for some, but not others? Or, in the alternative, is God's grace so weak that it can be overridden by man's whim?

Perseverance is not found in Scriptures? I'll get back to that in a second. But your other comments: yes, we only recognize God's voice through grace. No, God's grace never "stops" falling on men - but as we have discussed about wicked men and Romans 3/Psalm 14 et. al - the wicked man will utterly REFUSE to accept this grace. God's grace is not 'weak', but God gave us the ability to choose. We have a familial relationship with God, not so much a legal relationship. Thus, God doesn't desire to force us to "choose" Him. He calls to us, deeply desiring for us to turn to Him, while He gives us opportunity and tools to do just that. Regarding man's "whim", your wife could have overridden your "offer that she couldn't refuse" as well. In the subject of love, it takes a giving of one's self to the other, not a forcible and necessary choice for the other's perceived "good".

Now, back to perseverance. This is what our Lord and Savior HIMSELF taught regarding the possibility of falling away:

Matt. 7:18 - Jesus says that sound trees bear good fruit. But there is no guarantee that a sound tree will stay sound. It could go rotten.

Matt. 7:21 - all those who say "Lord, Lord" on the last day will not be saved. They are judged by their evil deeds.

Matt. 12:30-32 - Jesus says that he who is not with Him is against Him, therefore (the Greek for "therefore" is "dia toutos" which means "through this") blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. This means that failing to persevere in Jesus' grace to the end is the unforgivable sin against the Spirit. We must persevere in faith to the end of our lives.

Matt. 22:14 - Jesus says many are called but few are chosen. This man, who was destined to grace, was at God's banquet, but was cast out.

Luke 8:13 - Jesus teaches that some people receive the word with joy, but they have no root, believe for a while, and then fall away in temptation. They had the faith but they lost it.

Luke 12:42-46 - we can start out as a faithful and wise steward, then fall away and be assigned to a place with the unfaithful.

Luke 15:11-32 – in the parable of the prodigal son, we learn that we can be genuine sons of the Father, then leave home and die, then return and be described as "alive again."

John 6:70-71 - Jesus chose or elected twelve, yet one of them, Judas, fell. Not all those predestined to grace persevere to the end.

John 15:1-10 - we can be in Jesus (a branch on the vine), and then if we don't bear fruit, are cut off, wither up and die. Paul makes this absolutely clear in Rom. 11:20-23.

John 17:12 - we can be given to Jesus by the Father (predestined to grace) and yet not stay with Jesus, like Judas.

John 6:37 - those who continue to come to Jesus He won't cast out. But it's a continuous, ongoing action. We can leave Jesus and He will allow this because He respects our freewill.

John 6:39 - Jesus will not lose those the Father gives Him, but we can fall away, like Judas. God allows us not to persevere.

John 6:40 - everyone who sees the Son and believes means the person "continues" to believe. By continuing to believe, the person will persevere and will be raised up. Belief also includes obedience, which is more than an intellectual belief in God.

John 6:44 - Jesus says no one can come to me unless the Father "draws" him. This "drawing" is an ongoing process.

John 10:27-28 - when Jesus says, "no one shall snatch them out of my hands," He does not mean we can't leave His hands. We can choose to walk away from Him.

Rev. 2:4-5 – Jesus tells the Ephesians that they abandoned the love they had at first and have fallen. Jesus warns them to repent and do the works they did at first, otherwise He will remove their lampstand (their awaited place in heaven).

Rev. 3:4 - in Sardis, Jesus explained that some people received the white garment and soiled it with sin.

Rev. 3:5 - Jesus says whoever conquers will not be blotted out of the book of life (see Exodus 32:33). This means that we can be blotted out of the book of life. We can have salvation, and then lose salvation by our choice.

Rev. 3:11 - Jesus says to hold fast to what we have, so that no one may seize our crown. Jesus teaches us that we can have the crown of salvation and lose it.

Rev. 13:10; 14:12 - we are called from heaven for the endurance and faith of the saints, keeping the commandments and faith.

Rev. 21:7 - we must conquer in order to share in our heritage and become a true son of Jesus.

Rev. 22:19 - we can have a share in the tree of life in God's holy city and yet have that share taken away from us.

This is taken from www.scripturecatholic.com

There is even longer list, if you also consider the writings of Paul and the rest of the NT. Brother, we CAN fall away, there is no doubt on that. The elect cannot, but NO ONE knows who that is in this life.

Whoever enters will be saved. Therefore, the gate is closed to those who will not be saved. There is no room in Christ's fold for those who are not His sheep. They will not hear His voice because they will never pass through the gate. In addition, if Christ lets those who are not His sheep into His fold for a while, wouldn't that make Him a thief? Shepherds only allow their own sheep into their own pens. One is a thief if he allows other sheep in. Under your system, the analogy completely breaks down here.

First, the gate is NOT closed - it doesn't say that! It says ONLY the "sheep" will enter, presumably, the elect. Second, you are saying that only those who FIRST enter the sheepfold THEN hear the voice of Christ. Again, it doesn't say that, either! Christ doesn't "let" anyone into the sheepfold "for awhile". You are trying to equate entering the gate as the moment you proclaimed YOURSELF of the elect. Only the elect will enter through Christ. The rest will either try to enter "through another way" or not make the "effort" to enter the sheepfold. A thief is one who enters the sheepfold without going through the gate. That is clear from the verses. These verses are about the elect, not every Christian who proclaims "Lord, Lord". If you are not abiding in Christ, today or tommorrow, you are not going to enter the sheepfold. Only those who abide in Christ will enter.

If anyone's analogy breaks down, it would be yours - as then you would have "goats" entering into the sheepfold - then having Christ toss some of them out - while the Scripture tells us ONLY the SHEEP enter the sheepfold. Nothing else. Thus, ALL Christians are not entering the sheepfold. Only the elect. Here is where the virtue of hope and perseverance comes into play.

By the way, did you notice that it was the sheep who entered the sheepfold, and that the Shepherd did not lasso and drag them in through the gate???

Problem number 2. Jesus only lays down His life for His sheep, not the pretend sheep who later leave. Clearly, Jesus lays down His life only for the sheep who KNOW HIM.

Jesus died for ALL men, that is clear from other verses. That Jesus lays down His life ONLY for the sheep is another way of saying that only the sheep will benefit from Christ's death. Goats will not utilize the graces and gifts given to them. Thus, in a sense, Christ's death is only effective for the sheep. It is an opportunity for ALL men, just as Adam's sin was a curse for ALL men.

Regards

[jo kus]

Either men are rewarded with salvation according to their works or God gives salvation according to His mercy alone.

Before making such comments, you'd be advised to actually read the other "side's" arguments. Nowhere does anyone say, on this 4000 post thread, that we are saved by works...Beating that scarecrow seems to be a habit here.

First, it's "People who believe in free will say that they come to God alone by their own power". Now, it's "you guys believe that you are saved by works and not by the grace of God".

This is a large part of why "these debates are surprisingly similar to debates centuries ago". You refuse to contemplate the other's point of view and prefer to paint us with a theology that no one has ever espoused here.