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

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

[kosta50]

I never put it together that way before, but there really is no Good News with a ping-pong salvation theology, based on the inner goodness of men to make temporary free will decisions to accept Christ THROUGH a group of ever changing, but always fallible men who say that God wanted THEM, and many others, to be IN BETWEEN the believer and God

That's why the Church exists -- for ever changing, always fallible men, FK!

Perhaps you need to remember that Protestants are ever changing and fallible men too. The only difference is that the Protestants left the Church to be come self-righteous.

Surely, you can tell me why would God give knowledge to you personally but not to the Church collectively?

[AlbionGirl]

Your memory serves you well. But note this is the bare minimum. It is like a doctor telling you that you need 500 calories a day. This is not a recommendation, but a warning that we should take in our food (spiritually or physically) much more often to be fully healthy (spiritually or physically). Through the sacrament, we recall all that Christ has done and we abide with Him in a most personal and intimate connection. It goes without saying that a once-a-year reminder won't do.

I can appreciate the analogy, but I think it's not that strong. No doctor would recommend that 500 calorie mark as a bare necessity, as it would quickly produce disease, and then death, eventually.

And, jo, to my way of thinking, it doesn't 'go without saying that a once-a-year reminder won't do' because it does "do", in fact. That's one of the requirements that begets or doesn't beget being in communion with the Church. As I said, it just seems to be at odds with the idea that the Eucharist is the 'summit' of the life of Christian worship.

I recognize that this isn't something to be policed or that can be policed, but in order to inculcate the people of God with a high and strong attachment to the splendid gift Christ left us in the Sacrament, and to impress upon them the efficacy of the Sacrament as explained by Christ, that once a year requirement undercuts ALL of that, IMO.

[jo kus]

I can appreciate the analogy, but I think it's not that strong. No doctor would recommend that 500 calorie mark as a bare necessity, as it would quickly produce disease, and then death, eventually.

The Church is not recommending any such thing. They are saying that this is a bare minimum to maintain contact with the Savior through the Sacraments. It is insufficient to maintain our call to holiness. But on the other hand, do you think that those who only go once a year are going to lovingly "accept" your new standards of Catholic precepts? Those who are only going once a year are on life support. But forcing them to come more often will probably not make a difference. It really is a Catch-22, because the Church DOES want people to come more often, but they are not about to crush people into coming. The Church SHOULD challenge people to live up to their baptismal priesthood, not be crushed by more strict laws.

And, jo, to my way of thinking, it doesn't 'go without saying that a once-a-year reminder won't do' because it does "do", in fact. That's one of the requirements that begets or doesn't beget being in communion with the Church. As I said, it just seems to be at odds with the idea that the Eucharist is the 'summit' of the life of Christian worship.

AG, the Church has released NUMEROUS documents that say just what you are saying. Pope John Paul II had declared the year to be a Eucharistic year in the year he died, and writing an encyclical on its importance. Unfortunately, the people who are on life-support, sacrament-wise, aren't reading these encyclicals or hearing the voice of the Church on the importance of the sacraments.

Look at it this way. We Catholics are one big family, joined by Communion. Look at these intermittent partakers as those who don't show up for every family reunion. We still love these family members who don't show up all the time, we don't kick them out, and we don't tell them "show up to our family reunions, or hit the road, you are no longer part of our family". Is that the type of Church you think would show God's forgiveness to the rest of the world?

[the] once a year requirement undercuts ALL of that [importance of sacraments], IMO.

I understand and empathize with you. I, too, would love to see people partake more often, to attend Confession more often. I have found that at parishes that are conservative (like mine), those that participate in Perpetual Adoration, where the priest is NOT afraid to preach the difficult sermons - the ones that we NEED to hear - the Sacraments are more heavily attended. Confessions, I have noticed, have become busier at our church since we got our new conservative pastor last year. I have come to the conclusion that those liberals who preach relativism are undercutting themselves in the long run. Oh, they make people feel good - but they forget the axiom of St Paul:

If I were trying to win man's approval, I surely would not be serving Christ (Gal 1:10)

It is a difficult thing, AG. Know this. There was a time when people RARELY went to Communion - they didn't feel worthy. The Church THEN came up with the "minimum" rule to get people to come PERIOD. Will shortening this "minimum" make a difference at this point? Those who are truly interested in living out the Gospel are already coming more often. Those who are not are still part of the family - but you can't force love, now, can you?

Regards

[AlbionGirl]

I wasn't trying to imply the Church recommended receiving the Sacrament once yearly. I should have said no doctor would use that 500 calorie benchmark as a minimum requirement when advising on basic health maintenance. But it doesn't matter, 'cause I think we're talking past each other a little bit here, jo. That being said, I find you a gentle soul, and I like that.

[Forest Keeper]

After reading your whole reply, I believe you still misunderstand something vital to this conversation that we do share in common, namely, that man can do NOTHING of salutary value without God. ... Catholics do not believe we can do anything without the Lord that is pleasing in His eyes.

I know that you believe nothing happens without God's help or without God offering. I still do not know how you use the word "cooperation". Are there any human examples that would describe what you mean? Let's say my boss thought to himself (ordained) that he was going to have me complete a task. He then orders me to do it and I comply (unconditional election). Assume it would never have occurred to me to complete the task, had I not been ordered to. If you say that I cooperated in a loosely similar manner to salvation, then I would say fine. But I don't think you look at it this way. :)

"Can God make a rock that He cannot pick up"? Can God save all men if all men are to have free will? In the latter question, we must hold BOTH as true, despite our inability to completely solve this mystery.

The answer to the first question is "No". God's omnipotence does not mean He can do anything conceivable, it means He can do anything within the bounds of His nature. In a similar way, God cannot cease to exist, and God cannot sin. To create such a rock would be to create something bigger than Himself. This is impossible because it goes against His nature, that of being infinite.

Likewise, the answer to the second question is also "No". God cannot save all men, if all men are to have free will in the Catholic sense, as I understand it. If man's free will inevitably leads away from God, and God is not in total control of salvation, God needs cooperation, then there is no way God could save all men. That is, if God's nature were really like this. Of course I do not think it is.

Free will is not free if there is no choice. When something becomes a necessity, it is not free. Are you making a free will choice when someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to do something? No, your are being coerced.

This is what I thought your view was. That's why I keep saying I think the salvation decision, under your view, is made independently of God. I don't mean in opposition to God, but rather separately from God. I see God as accomplishing our own salvations through us. I know you don't see it that way. I see your view being that man finishes his own salvation through his free will, independent of God, i.e., not coerced. BTW, I don't think coercion only works in the negative sense. Coercion could also be God opening our eyes to a "decision" which is really no decision at all.

"There is no greater love than this, that a man die for his friends".

This is the quote I said didn't apply. :) In my example, there was no reason for me to jump, it wasn't necessary. Therefore, it couldn't be an act of love. That's why I disagree with you when you say that Christ died unnecessarily and it was still an act of love from Him. If it was unnecessary, then it was suicide, a sin.

You make God the Father out to be a blood-thirsty tyrant, rather than a loving Father. Christ obeyed the Father's Will to the end. You call Christ's death suicide, but it is ultimate trust in His Father's love.

You're not at all addressing the issue of necessity. That's the only thing I have been talking about.

I think it would be more proper to say that sin is NOT an existence, but a lack of an existence, namely, good. Thus, God did not create on non-existence. At least that is the concept that the Greek and Latin Fathers have taught from 1500-1700 years ago.

I actually fully agree with you that evil is an absence of God, like dark is an absence of light, so you are right. However, I'm not so sure the Orthodox see it that way. I seem to remember a few posts to the effect that evil was an actual "thing" that exists independently of good, but I can't remember who said it, so... :)

Or we can say that God foresees what it would take for a man to choose "A" and place the correct circumstances in man's path to choose "A".

If the correct circumstances guaranteed the result, then we might be on the same page. But I don't think you are willing to go there. :)

[kosta50]

I actually fully agree with you that evil is an absence of God, like dark is an absence of light, so you are right. However, I'm not so sure the Orthodox see it that way. I seem to remember a few posts to the effect that evil was an actual "thing" that exists independently of good, but I can't remember who said it, so

This is what the Orthodox believe:

The Mystery of Evil (from "I believe: A Short Exposition of the Orthodox Doctrine" )

"I believe that God created neither death nor suffering nor evil. Evil has no hypostasis or existence as such. Evil is the absence of good; death is the absence of life. Evil is the alienation of the created being who has estranged himself from God; it is the degeneration of an essence that was created good.

The sinner dies, not because God slays him in punishment so that He might revenge Himself on him—for man cannot offend God, nor does God experience any satisfaction at the death of a man—the sinner dies because he has alienated himself from the Source of Life.

God is not responsible for evil, nor is He its cause. Neither is God blameworthy because He created man's nature with the possibility of alienating itself. If He had created human nature without free will, by this imposed condition He would have rendered the created intelligent being purely passive in nature; the creature would simply submit, not having the possibility of doing otherwise, since it would not be free.

However, God wished that, after a fashion, we too should be His co-workers in His creation and be responsible for our own eternal destiny. God knows in His infinite wisdom how to transform the causes of evil into that which is profitable for man's salvation.

Thus God uses the consequences of evil so as to make roses bloom forth from the thorns, although He never desired the thorns, nor did He create them in order to use them as instruments. He permitted these things to exist out of respect for our freedom.

Thus God permits trials and sufferings without having created them. When suffering comes upon me, I must receive this as an unfathomable proof of His love, as a blessing in disguise and without feeling indignant, I must seek out its significance.

As for temptations, I must avoid them, and for the sake of humility, beseech God to spare me from them, even as our Saviour teaches us in the Lord's Prayer: "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. "Yet, in all trials, temptations, and sufferings, we conclude our prayer as did the Saviour in the garden of Gethsemane: "Not My will, but Thine be done" (Luke 22:42)."

I am sure our Latin brothers share the exact same orthodox belief.

[Forest Keeper]

And then Adam sinned, according to the will of God no doubt, and that was good too? Correct? It was so "good" that God had to sacrifice Himself on the Cross to repay that decision?

In the sense that what God ordained happened, yes, it was good. God also ordained that He would sacrifice Himself on the cross, and so in the same sense, that was good. God could have ordered the universe in any way He chose, but He chose this one, for His own reasons. I believe this rather than believe that it was man who chose to kill God against His will. I don't give man that much "credit" in terms of ability.

God then decided to drown the wicked men, made wicked by His will, no doubt, according to your theology, and you call that "good?" ... A vengeful and angry God that drowns His own creation is kind? Especially, if we consider your theology to proclaim that even our wickedness is strict obedience to God's will?

Do you believe that the story of the flood is a fable? Or, do you believe that the flood happened, but God didn't cause it because that would make Him vengeful and angry? I believe that the flood actually did happen, that God directly caused it, and therefore, it was good and just.

Your example of saying "I do this out of love," and kissing your wife as you jump off a bridge is not what Christ did for us. Your jumping off a bridge, for her, would be related only if she was in mortal danger with no other way of being saved. Yes, then your sacrifice would be meaningful and would reflect your love for her -- and could not be considered a "suicide."

Yes, indeed. You are 100% right, here. In my example, it would have been suicide for me because it was unnecessary. Jo Kus said, in effect, that it was unnecessary that Christ die on the cross, (that He could have saved us in some other way), but that He did it anyway out of love for us. I was trying to show why I disagree with that. My point was that SINCE Christ did die on the cross, that it MUST have been necessary to save us.

[Forest Keeper]

Then, he [Job] was a perfect man (in God's eyes -- and that's what matters right?)! And then St. Paul's assertion that "none, not one is righteous" (in God's eyes) is what?

Paul's assertion is exactly correct. No one has ever been righteous in God's eyes who was also a nonbeliever. All of us have spent all of the earliest years of our lives as unbelievers. All who become saved believers spend all of the latter years of their lives as saved believers. Paul is talking about the former "all". Paul knew as well as we do who were called righteous in the OT, so he couldn't have meant all people for all time in God's eyes. Paul did not contradict himself, or any other scripture.

[Forest Keeper]

[About your priest:] His truly interesting point, though, was that he felt that in the modern age, the public reading of Scripture has become more important than it has been since those pre-printing press days. We in the 21st c. are so married to our TV and computer screens that we read less and less (and chatter more and more on-line about what little we do read.) I thought it was an insightful point...

I agree. I think we are reading less and less, partly because there is so much more competition for our time than there used to be. I'm glad to say that I read much more now than I did 15 years ago, except that I gave up the NYT ("All the news that might be true"). I wish my church was more like yours in public readings of scripture. How can you lose when you stick with the 'A' material? :)

[.30Carbine]

Bumping your beautiful metaphor at 4,963

[kosta50]

Do you believe that the story of the flood is a fable?

It's irrelevant, because the biblical account of it has a message and that message says that God repented (KJV), or was "sorry" (NAS, NKJV), was "grieved" (NIV), that God "took it to heart" (LXX), that He had made people who "turned out" wicked! Surprise, surprise! According to you, they didn't turn out wicked by themselves, by rejecting God, but because God ordained it so!

If you believe that, then why was He angry with wicked men -- they turned out exactly as He ordianed them to be! Where is their fault? They are just passive "tools" and fools in your vision of God's creation.

[In addition to wicked men, Genesis 6:6 states that God decided to destroy all innocent animal life as well. I wouldn't call that kind.]

I believe this rather than believe that it was man who chose to kill God against His will

Man didn't "choose" to kill God. Christ's sacrifice was voluntary and out of love for the wicked mankind. Christ came to redeem what we spoiled, to heal what we wounded, to rebuild what we destroyed, to save what was lost through our rejection of God.

If it is none of our doing, if it it is not because of our digression against God's will, than Christ's sacrifice is not done for our fall but for His own sake and glory.

[kosta50]

Paul is talking about the former "all" [nonbelievers]

Everyone believed in those days. I don't think there was a single account of an atheist. The righteous of the OT were chosen by God to do specific tasks, just as our Lord Jesus Christ chose His apostles, including +Paul.

According to +Paul, no one can be righteous because all have sinned (through Adam). We are made righteous by baptism, yet as far as I know the OT righteous were not baptized. In fact, Christ specifically went to pull the rigtheous out of hell -- but one can ask if they were rigtheous, why were they in hell to begin with? And why were Adam and Eve among the righteous?

Yet, clearly, Job is not portrayed as someone who was anything but perfect in God's eyes.

[HarleyD]

"If the Spirit indwelt at baptism, and Jesus was led all His life, then what changed, if anything, in the relationship? I know it's a big deal for us when the Spirit indwells, I'm just not sure of the mechanics of what it meant for Christ."

An excellent question and one that I'm puzzled by. I'm not sure but I think John Calvin's answer is the best:

It was then, for the first time, that the Spirit was seen descending on him; not that he had formerly been destitute of him, but because he might be said to be then consecrated by a solemn rite. For we know that he remained in concealment, during thirty years, like a private individual, because the time for his manifestation was not yet come; but when he intended to make himself known to the world, he began with his baptism.

John Calvin's Commentary - John 1

[HarleyD]

from kosta: "Harley D: "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" Rom 5:1"

Correction: Harley D God: "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" Rom 5:1"

As much as I would like to take credit I'd better not. I still believe in a God of wrath as well as a God of love.

What makes you think your faith is the "right" faith when each and every Protestant interprets the Scripture his or her own way (of course, always "justifying" onself by claiming guidance of the Holy Spirit), yet coming up with thousands of different interpretations?

Now this is a slippery slope when all is said and done. Who's right? And let's not forget about applying this to Orthodox and Catholics brethren now, shall we? How do we know they're right?

While you may disagree, the only tangible thing God has given us is His word. This is our our benchmark. Each of us will give an accounting of our own actions based upon this book. You're not going to be able to say; "Father So-N-So told me this was right so I believed him." God the Father tells us if any man lack wisdom let him ask it of God who gives it.

This principle is recorded in Samuel where every man did right in their own eyes. God wants us to be dependent on Him. The people didn't like it and came together and asked Samuel to give them a king. Remember God's response?

The Lord said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. 1 Sam 8:7

If we truly seek God's wisdom and understanding, He is gracious to forgive us our sins, He understand our weaknesses, and cleanse us from unrighteousness-even our theological boo-boos. But keep in mind the FEAR of the Lord is the BEGINNING of wisdom (Prov 1:7). And this isn't being in awl of God. He can do just what He darn well pleases and whatever He does will be right and just. We should be mindful of that. It is God who reveals Himself to us, if He so graciously chooses.

The only wisdom I can offer on this matter is that you must seek God's wisdom and study to show yourself approved.

[HarleyD]

The only difference is that the Protestants left the Church to be come self-righteous.

Tsk, tsk! And why did the Orthodox break apart from the Catholic Church?

[HarleyD]

If you believe that, then why was He angry with wicked men -- they turned out exactly as He ordianed them to be! Where is their fault?

All people turn out just as God has made them unless you don't believe that God has made us so. This is the path to Open Theism-the belief that God doesn't know the choices of men.

If it is none of our doing, if it it is not because of our digression against God's will, than Christ's sacrifice is not done for our fall but for His own sake and glory.

Man was certainly culpable but it was preordained by God the Father.

[HarleyD]

FK-If God had wanted to elect everyone, He would have.

jokus-UNLESS God also has another will that logically would make BOTH "desires" impossible to fulfill completely! "Can God make a rock that He cannot pick up"? Can God save all men if all men are to have free will?

There is an error in your logic. The error is that you assume God throws out grace to all and ties Himself to this choice knowing the outcome. The error in this logic is that the scriptures also state that God created the wicked for the day of destruction.

"What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." Rom 9:22

Not only are there the elect which God has foreknown before the foundation of the world but God purposely passes over others. While I know you don't believe in double predestination, the scriptures plainly state there are those who God has purposely created for destruction.

I don't really want to get into the fine points of this. It should be recognize that even Calvinists debate the order of salvation. However, simply because God knew that some of His creation would not come to Him and that He created hell for their destruction, logically implies that He knew and destined their fate.

Free will is not free if there is no choice.

True. That is why you won't find the term "free will" in scripture in regards to man's salvation.

FK-"If Jesus didn't HAVE to die to save us, then He committed blind suicide."

jokus-"Tsk, tsk. You make God the Father out to be a blood-thirsty tyrant"

I seem to remember a verse, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins..."

FK-"NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE on our side has ever said that a regenerated man can only choose good."

jokus-"I was quoting Harley at the time. I'd have to search to find that exact post."

I willing admit I'm a flawed creature subject to errors. However, I don't recall making such a statement.

Unregenerated man is in bondage. He can do nothing that is pleasing to God simply because anything pleasing to God must be done by faith. Unregenerated man does not have faith. That doesn't mean that unregenerated man can't do some morally "good" things. It simple means that unregenerate man cannot do anything pleasing to God. God must give unregenerate man faith.

God regenerate man by giving him faith. Regenerated man can/cannot do things that are pleasing to God. Because man is regenerated there will be some things that man will do that will please God. There will be other things that regenerate man will do that is sinful. For these things God will chastise regenerate man for his own benefit to bring man around.

You would like to say that God gives man faith so that he can make a choice but this is nonsense. If man had faith then man would be regenerated now wouldn't he? By definition of "faith", he would do at least one pleasing thing to God-to believe on the one whom He sent.

[jo kus]

I wasn't trying to imply the Church recommended receiving the Sacrament once yearly.

I know what you meant... I am just wondering how much nominal Catholics, those who only come once a year, would heed the new "Law" to come more often.

Thanks for your insights,

Regards

[jo kus]

I know that you believe nothing happens without God's help or without God offering. I still do not know how you use the word "cooperation".

The Bible makes it clear that we will be judged for eternal heaven or hell based on our response to the Christ. While God moves us to choose His will, we know He does NOT force us, because even the regenerate sin, and CAN fall away. Perhaps it might help if you consider who is responsible for a man being condemned to hell. Is it man or is it God's fault - and why? If you say it is man who condemns himself (along with unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers), then MAN is part of the formula. Man is presented with an option, God helps man make this choice. If a man is saved for heaven, it is because that man responded to God's gifts. It is God who is responsible. If man is not saved, it is man's fault, as the gifts were present.

A real world example? One used by St. Augustine and St. Thomas might help. The sun shines equally on all people as a gift of light to mankind. We remain in this light - unless we willingly shut our eyes to it. We remain in darkness on account of our own will. We remain in the light because the light is there and we do not reject it.

The answer to the first question is "No". God's omnipotence does not mean He can do anything conceivable, it means He can do anything within the bounds of His nature.

And you have answered the question on why God does not save all people, even though He greatly desires all men to be saved. God has decided to give man free will - which, logically speaking, means the possibility of rejection. Will is not free if something can not be rejected. Do you or do you not believe that man has free will? Can you, in any given moment, choose to reject a commandment of God?

If man's free will inevitably leads away from God, and God is not in total control of salvation, God needs cooperation, then there is no way God could save all men. That is, if God's nature were really like this. Of course I do not think it is.

Read from verse 18 to the end of Romans 1. Consider what IS the wrath of God...It is leaving men to their own will. God holds out proof of His existence, even to the pagans. They have a Law written on their heart (as per Romans 2). Even they are without excuse. We, with THIS LAW, CAN obey it - or choose not to obey it. But if we choose not to, God does what? He leaves man to their devices. Now, is not God "awaiting" our response in this example? Strictly speaking, He is not - He knows what we will choose. But He allows us to choose it without executing miraculous infusions of grace to individuals. Forcing men to "believe" in God is not what love is about.

That's why I keep saying I think the salvation decision, under your view, is made independently of God. I don't mean in opposition to God, but rather separately from God. I see God as accomplishing our own salvations through us.

God accomplishes two desires at once when a man chooses God - the man is saved, and the man chose God freely. Man doesn't choose God separately, because God is intimately intertwined in all of our decisions. No one can take our thoughts and actions and divide them up and say "this part was God, and this part was me". We know, from Scriptures and experience, though, that we CAN choose. Consider the people who SAW the splitting of the Red Sea, SAW the water come from the rock, SAW the manna, etc. - and STILL turned from God, dying in the desert before seeing the promised land.

Therefore, it couldn't be an act of love. That's why I disagree with you when you say that Christ died unnecessarily and it was still an act of love from Him. If it was unnecessary, then it was suicide, a sin.

I didn't say Christ died unnecessarily! I said that God the Father could have chosen a different manner of saving mankind. But once the Father chose to show His love for man through such a means, it remained for Christ to obey His Will. Certainly, Jesus didn't die unnecessarily!

You're not at all addressing the issue of necessity. That's the only thing I have been talking about.

What makes something that God does "necessary"? Is God forced to do anything? You might say it is necessary for us, but for God, nothing is "necessary".

However, I'm not so sure the Orthodox see it that way. I seem to remember a few posts to the effect that evil was an actual "thing" that exists independently of good, but I can't remember who said it, so... :)

IF someone said that, it would be close to Oriental dualism that the Orthodox, to my knowledge, abhor. Perhaps someone reading this will reply to that.

If the correct circumstances guaranteed the result, then we might be on the same page. But I don't think you are willing to go there. :)

Just because God arranged things doesn't mean we don't have a free choice, does it? Even in such a scenario, WE still are making the decision - AND there IS the possibility of choosing "wrongly". We don't have a choice taken away because God tries to arrange things so that we are more likely to answer "yes". In the end, we ALWAYS can say "no". Thus, our will remains intact, while God guides our wills and desires to please Him.

Regards