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

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

[Forest Keeper]

What is ironic about this response is that is EXACTLY how the Church determined which writings were not legitimately inspired by God.

Well, even a broken clock ... :)

The community of faith has been given the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit cannot lie. You KNOW this! And yet, you willingly "differ from the Church".

I agree that the Spirit cannot lie, and as you have said, sometimes man misinterprets. We believe that is happening in each other's case. :) So, I'm not surprised at your response at all. It is consistent with your faith.

[jo kus]

Paul doesn't mention "apostolic succession"

He sure does, but not in those exact words, in the Pastorals. Nor does Paul mention "Trinity", but we can get its meaning from Paul, as well. You should know this. The concepts behind earlier Christianity, even if not specifically NAMED, are found within the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition as related by the Church Fathers.

No mention of following traditions here. [in 2 Tim 2:15]

There is plenty of mention of Oral teachings to be followed. I find three just in 1 Corinthians... This is not a particularly strong argument for doing away with Sacred Tradition.

It is historical fact that the Church forbid Bibles during the Reformation and documented this fact at the Council of Trent.

That is because the Church was intent on PROTECTING God's word. Consider how the heretics before Luther were presenting "Scriptures" with their own interpretations, leaving out words or changing them. Yea, they had lots of respect for God's Word. Discontent former priests re-writing the Bible in their own image. And of course, Luther is renowned for changing the Word of God, Romans 3:28, and quite frankly, DEFYING the Church to do something about it. Really. Is it a wonder the Church reacted to protect the Bible, making only one official translation?

Regards

[HarleyD]

With all due respects to the blessed Mary, she was in need of a Savior just as we all are:

Luk 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

She wasn't perfect contrary to popular myth. The only reason you think Matt 1:25 is hard is simply because you have flawed concept. There is nothing evil or wrong about Joseph having sexual relationship with Mary. It states in several places about our Lord Jesus' "brothers"

1Co 9:5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Joh 7:2-3 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near. Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing.

There are a few others. The scripture also has our Lord Jesus minimizing Mary,

Mat 12:48-50 But Jesus answered the one who was telling and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."

I will add that John Calvin thought Mary was a perpetual virgin which only goes to show you can't be right about everything.

[jo kus]

It was strictly by Sola Scriptura that Peter and the rest could look back at the promises of God of changing this covenant.

So you should have no problems with the Catholic Church's claim that only they can validly interpret the Scriptures. I doubt that this argument held much weight among Jewish listeners of Paul when Acts 15 did away with circumcision. It wasn't like Paul could point to a verse that foretold that circumcision would go away. No, there was no Sola Scriptura being utilized by the Apostles. They were following what they SAW with their OWN EYES! They didn't need to rely on the Bible and proof texts. Refering to the Scripture merely showed that it was part of God's plan from the beginning, IF you took a Christian view of the Scriptures. Jews disagree with those interpretations, don't they? What convinced people was the proclamation of the witnesses, not verses in the Bible alone...

Regards

[1000 silverlings]

So you should have no problems with the Catholic Church's claim that only they can validly interpret the Scriptures.

Your claim is not biblical

[kosta50]

Eos" is a very common word that is used several times with the clear meaning "even unto, but possibly also after" by Matthew himself. In 1:25 his focus is on the miraculous birth, so he speaks on what happened before the birth. I don't see what is so troubling to you, other that late-Protestant machinations

That he (+Josph) knew her not till she bore a Child. This could be interpreted that Jospeh did not have sexual relations with Mary until after she had a child, or -- as we understand -- up to the point when she conceived and had a Child -- i.e. asserting her virginity. But we assume that sexual relations did not exist after the Birth because there is nothing in the NT that asserts that they did or didn't.

We know she was a virgin when she said to the angel that she knows "not a man." Besides, she was bethroded to +Jospeh, and people did not, as a matter of habit, have pre-marital sex in those days because it was something she could have died for.

Now, what is troubling is that the Apostles specifically assert her virginity prior to Conception and Birth, but remain ambiguous as to what might have happened afterwards.

[1000 silverlings]

Why establish churches and dismantle synanogues if it is one and the same faith? Because it is not the same faith!

The only church "established" was the one not made with human hands, the one that God Himself said that He preferred.

[jo kus]

John 17:9 is not refering to individual predestination, but to the People of God, the community of people that Christ came to establish, which was to include Gentiles. The same can be said for John 10. Jesus did not come to give individual salvation to scattered invisible believers, but to His People gathered together in a visible community. This should be obvious from His formation of 12 Apostles, symbolic of the original People of God.

Christ's death was sufficient for all, but efficacious only for the elect whom God has given Christ to redeem.

As I said before, I agree with this general statement, although I am positive we mean different things by it. God gives sufficient saving grace to all men, but only some will utilize it for their own salvation - which would make it efficacious.

Christ's death did not make salvation possible; His death saves. It saves only those who believe, who repent of turning from Christ. It is OFFERED to men in different manners. Christ's did not only preach to those who "would" believe Him as decreed by God before time began! He didn't die for only those men who were previously decreed to turn to Him. Otherwise, you are saying God positively sends people to hell and is thus the Creator of sin. I cannot consider that as a Christian teaching.

Man-centered philosophies will always tell you that His work is incomplete and variable and in need of augmentation by other men and institutions.

Rhetoric. God died for the sin of all men, but all men will not be saved. If God desires all men to be saved, then there is something else in the formula that is missing - and that would be man's response to God's grace...

You didn't answer my question earlier. Did Christ die for your sins, or not, jo kus?

Christ died for ALL men's sins - so I would be included, correct?

Regards

[jo kus]

The Jews are... the original Calvinists

LOL! Where is the sacramental system of Calvin? Where is the priests? Where is the concept of human freedom? The concept that man can turn to God? I don't think I see the connnection.

Regards

[1000 silverlings]

I don't think I see the connnection.

Yes, this is an ongoing problem between us.

[HarleyD]

Apostolic Tradition as related by the Church Fathers.

What precisely are you talking about when you talk about "apostolic tradition"? Is this some divine knowledge popped into someone's head like Pope Honorius or Leo? How do you determine who this is pass down to? The one that has the most votes? The most popular? The one who looks good in a white hat or who toes the party line?

Let me ask you point blank, if the apostalic tradition teaches that the Catholic Church is the ONE TRUE CHURCH then is there or is there not salvation outside of the Catholic Church?

That is because the Church was intent on PROTECTING God's word.

Please. You might be able to past the fertilizer on to someone else. The Council of Trent was only interested in keeping the interpretation of scriptures in a way that would save them face and keep the coffers ringing for building the lovely new Vatican. 100 years later they said they goof. So much for Apostalic tradition. They never refunded the indulgence money.

[jo kus]

I was never able to understand much of the book of John until I understood this perspective. God has always called out a people. He called out Abraham. He called out Moses. He called out the children of Israel. He called out Paul. Do we see a trend?

John is not refering to the individual's calling. That is a Protestant innovation resulting from the Nominalism and Humanism that Luther lived in. John is refering to a community of people being called out, not individuals in some sort of scattered, invisible conglomeration.

No one does what is righteous (Rom 3). Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11). God gives us faith (Eph 2). Men become slaves to righteousness (Rom 6).

And...O vain man, dost thou desire to know that faith without works is dead? (James 2). Jesus is the reconciliation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2). I, Jesus say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church (Mat 18)

Yes, so simple, isn't it?!

Regards

[1000 silverlings]

the Church was intent on PROTECTING God's word.

Are you contending that God's Word needed protecting? I have a story from Numbers for you if so.

[jo kus]

Your claim is not biblical

I still await your biblical proof that the Apostles had authority to do away with Circumcision... Thus, disproving Sola Scriptura and your whole paradigm of "your claim is not biblical". I am sure the Judaizers said the same things to Paul!!!

Regards

[jo kus]

Are you contending that God's Word needed protecting? I have a story from Numbers for you if so.

In a manner of speaking, yes. When people write books that claim to be Scripture, changing key words to suit their fancy, does lightening strike that person? If I were you, I would consider reading Numbers 16 from the point of view of a "protester" of God's Church...

Regards

[annalex]

Mary was indeed in need of Christ, and indeed, Christ called everyone who followed Him a brother or a mother. That is not "minimizing" though. You are way behind the curve here, Harley.

[1000 silverlings]

I have explained to you in length that God did away with circumcision, and why.

[annalex]

the Apostles specifically assert her virginity prior to Conception and Birth, but remain ambiguous as to what might have happened afterwards.

They simply don't say anything because the focus of the canonical scripture is Christ and not Mary.

[jo kus]

I contend that God did away with it [a Biblical COMMAND]

WHERE IS THEIR AUTHORITY FROM SCRIPTURE ALONE???

[jo kus]

Let me ask you point blank, if the apostalic tradition teaches that the Catholic Church is the ONE TRUE CHURCH then is there or is there not salvation outside of the Catholic Church?

No. But I have already explained this to you. One does not have to be a Roman Catholic to be saved - nor does being a Roman Catholic prove salvation has been won. There is no salvation outside the Church - but Vatican 2 has made this clear that some may exist who are part of the Catholic Church and not "know" it.

Regards