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

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

[D-fendr]

I think I can simplify our differences. I think you accept the concept of intercessory prayer, and our difference is in the Communion of Saints - intercessory prayer as it applies to Saints who have passed this existence.

[1000 silverlings]

The area where Jesus grew up was likely somewhat like a small town in America. After all, they walked pretty much everywhere they went. If you ever lived in a small area, you know that people pretty much know everything about everyone.

Not only did they have prophets telling them the time of the coming of the Messiah, ie (Daniel 9:24), but you had a levite priest, John the Baptist's father Zacharias, publicly prophesying that his son was going to declare who the Messiah was. (Luke 1) Then you had the strange circumstances associated with John's birth that would and should have alerted the Jewish inhabitants that something unusual was happening.

Herod heard the rumors, and bringing learned men before him, knowing the signs, narrowed it down to boys under 2 years old in Bethlehem. Shepherds in the field heard of it. The Magi, from a distant land, heard of it.

Simeon and Anna, a prophetess, (Luke 2) prophesised publicly over him in the temple, one or both having asked the Lord to show them that day.

The Jews kept meticulous records of births, etc. and calculated events by generations. As is indicated, also in Luke, in Daniel and other places, a certain number of years willl occur before the time of some important event. If the magi (magicians) could figure it out...

At 12 years old, Christ was in the temple teaching the rabbis, so that everyone wondered about him. In addition, later on, Jesus told them who he was. (Luke 4:18) He confronted the pharisees with a question that they couldn't answer: (Luke 20:41-44.) In addition, the Lord has told us many things about his 2nd coming, so we will have no excuse either when it happens.

As for Judas, the bible says that Satan entered inot him, so Judas must have given him an opening.

The disciples believed on him, as did many many others, but they were people, like ourselves, with lots of responsibilities, and let's not forget, both a fear of their leaders and of the occupying army of the Romans.

Moses said in Deut 4:34 that no one but God Himself can accomplish such a feat, and with signs and wonders. That alone, in retrospect, knowing that Jesus took a nation from God's nation (all that the Father had given him) should be enough now to cause the Jews to believe.

[1000 silverlings]

Thanks BD, very good post. I'll save the information.

I knew there was something about Zebulon and Jesus: Matthew 4:13-17, referencing Isaiah 9;1,2, and 42, 6,7

[HarleyD]

Yes, Paul had preached before he was consecrated by "flesh and blood", -- but after Christ Himself sent him.

So then apostolic succession is "after the fact"? Someone just declares themself to be a Cardinal and everyone nod their head three years later? Is that how it works?

Lest you think this is limited to Paul, Apollos did exactly the same thing...

Act 18:24-28 Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Seems the only qualification Apollos had was that he understood the scriptures, not the oral views of the Jerusalem Council. He was just a little confused in his theology and was corrected (again, not by the head of the church but by laypeople).

[1000 silverlings]

The other aspect is that Christianity became a different religion. It is not Judaism in praxis. Christianity dismantled Judaism, staring with God on down

What an astounding statement. How can one anticipate what you will say next!

Catholicism became a different religion though, I will grant you that.

[blue-duncan]

If based on your theology, no one knows if he/she makes it to heaven or purgatory or where ever until after they are dead, how do you know now if any one in the last 2,000 years, except Jesus, made it to heaven?

Who decides who gets to heaven, purgatory or where ever, God? the Pope? the Church? a lottery? or the person them self?

If God decides, then how does any one know if Mary or the saint or the dead person they are praying to for intercession actually made it to heaven to pass the request on?

Seems to me, one would pray to the One you know with certainty is able to do something about the prayer rather than just playing the odds and hoping the intercessor made it.

[Full Court]

I do and yes.

What do the dead say when they speak to you?

[Full Court]

Praying to the saints is not to be confused with worship.

of course it is, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

My question is how do you talk to the dead, do they talk back and where in scripture are you told to pray to anyone besides God or Christ?

[Full Court]

Prayer to saints is prayer to God.

No it isn't.

[Full Court]

I think I can simplify our differences.

I don't believe that it is biblical to pray to the dead instead of God or Christ and you believe it's ok, even if you can't find scripture to back up your position.

[Full Court]

What an excellent point!

[Agrarian]

I think that right now the consensus in the Catholic church has shifted solidly toward accepting the Orthodox account of her death, from what I could tell the last time I researched this matter some months ago.

The belief that she didn't die was never anything official, but I do remember seeing a Catholic priest on TV saying that the wording of the declaration intentionally avoids mentioning either her death or saying that she didn't die, since the Eastern tradition is clear that she died, but that the Western tradition is that she didn't die (in retrospect, he seems to have overstated the Western tradition.)

As I said, the Pope who declared the dogma of the Assumption is said to have held this belief. It really is just a logical conclusion of the Immaculate Conception -- no original sin, no death or corruption. It seems to have been born out of exuberant devotion to the IC.

Even today, I believe that those Catholics who believe that the Theotokos died hold that she did so voluntarily in the same way that Christ voluntarily died. Unless I misunderstand the implications of the Immaculate Conception, it would seem to me contradictory to believe the doctrine of the IC and also believe that the Theotokos would suffer inevitable physical corruption and death (as we Orthodox believe her physical corruption and death were inevitable and inexorable....)

Perhaps Annalex can clarify.

[jo kus]

There is a distinct difference between Church writings and what was written by the Apostles just as can be said that there was a distinct difference between the oral word of the Apostles and the oral word of anyone else

I agree. That is why it is more difficult to ascertain Apostolic Tradition. It would take a nearly universal agreement on an issue in time and space - the so-called "sense of the faithful" that St. Lerins speaks of. I think Apostolic Tradition is more relegated to Liturgy and interpretation.

What is neglected is the recognition that Paul was NOT appointed through Apostolic succession. He was appointed by God and this was verified by Ananias in a vision. Now at the very least, if there were an Apostolic succession as you suppose, and Peter was the head of the Church, wouldn’t it make sense that God would have revealed Paul to Peter instead of Ananias, who wasn’t even an apostle?

According to Paul, he went to see Peter for two weeks to ensure that their Gospel agreed. Apparently, it did. I don't think it matters much that Paul was not revealed first to Peter.

He didn’t even get blessed by the first Pope

Sure he did. Check Galatians. It would be silly to think that Paul did not highly regard Peter, since Paul went specifically to see him...

Sorry, the conversion of Paul in Acts 9 does not square with Apostolic succession as God has recorded the events

The exception proves the rule, Harley.

Regards

[Agrarian]

"...the notion that the faith of the Prophets and Moses is the same faith we have -- an assertion that Moses and the Prophets would have recognized Christ as God. I believe that is what Agrarian had said, and if I am misrepresenting it I am pinging him for a correction."

Yes, you basically have it right. I would choose to clarify it by making sure that it is clear that I do not believe that Abraham could recite the Nicene Creed or that Moses, had he been asked while he was alive, would have said that God would be born of a virgin, become man, and walk among us. There was a gradual revelation throughout the Old Testament, and a very big revelation that changed everything in the Incarnation.

There have been unquestionable developments all along -- the worship and faith of Abraham is more developed and reflects more "refinement," if you will, than did that of Noah. The tabernacle worship instituted by God through Moses was more developed than was that of Abraham. The temple worship that began under Solomon again was more developed. With each writing of each prophet, God was further revealing Himself to his people. At each step along the way there were those amongst the chosen people who recognized this revelation and believed it, and those who killed the prophets.

Synagogue worshiop developed in circumstances of exile and amongst those far from the temple, and developed as a separate type of worship and prayer alongside of and complementary to the sacramental temple worship. Orthodox Christian worship is a continuation of both synagogue and temple worship, and it, too, has developed over the centuries.

I would certainly maintain that throughout the entire process, it is the same God being worshiped and that the core faith of the faith never changed, and you are correct that I have said (agreeing that it is an "unprovable" speculation) that Moses and the Prophets would have recognized Christ as Messiah and accepted him as God, recognizing that he was the same God who had revealed himself to them.

The main "evidence" for this comes from what Christ and the Apostles said in the NT, such as: "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

That said, I hasten to add that your objection to this self-understanding of the Church is a legitimate intellectual position -- one that I don't think could ever be "disproven" through argumentation or evidence.

[jo kus]

what would you say about a poor man who leaps off a building so that his family can collect on a life insurance policy? Assume he genuinely thought he was doing it out of love. Did he sin?

I don't know, but he isn't too smart, because life insurance doesn't pay out in suicides...

I don't think of us as puppets because none of us experiences it like that. After regeneration, we do have new abilities. One is the ability to please God. Another is the ability to be sanctified.

Well, this is not classic Protestantism, to my knowledge. It sounds Wesleyian. Luther and Calvin claimed that man continued to be "sin", even after regeneration, since he had no ability to participate in salvation, even after regeneration. God did everything. No free will. No responsibility. No perseverance. No obedience expected. What you say makes more sense than Luther and Calvin claims that man is spiritually dead and must take on some sort of legal, external justification to be saved. This sounds a bit different than FK from a few weeks ago...

Regards

[jo kus]

As far as speaking to the dead goes, why don't you try it and let me know if anyone answers you back.

So who WERE those charecters talking to Jesus during His Transfiguration???

Regards

[jo kus]

how do you know now if any one in the last 2,000 years, except Jesus, made it to heaven?

When God works a miracle through the intercessionary prayers of a recently pass-away saintly person, that is the signal that God is telling His Church that "the prayers of a righteous man are powerful".

Who decides who gets to heaven, purgatory or where ever, God? the Pope? the Church? a lottery? or the person them self?

God, which is why we don't presume to claim we are on the "elect" list. Those who claim to be already going to heaven are presumptuous and taking away from God's freedom.

If God decides, then how does any one know if Mary or the saint or the dead person they are praying to for intercession actually made it to heaven to pass the request on?

Scripture and Apostolic Tradition tells us that the saints in heaven continue to intercede for those who continue the fight. The saints are perfect in love. The definition of love is to wish the best for another person for their own sake. This is best acted upon by the saints in heaven through their prayers to the Almighty for our sake.

Seems to me, one would pray to the One you know with certainty is able to do something about the prayer rather than just playing the odds and hoping the intercessor made it.

God enjoys answering the prayers of His beloved creation, especially the ones who have given everything He has given them back to God. I picture God as a loving Father and a little boy together in the garage, the little boy "changing the oil" in the car while the Father looks on, relishing the presence of His beloved. This is how Catholics look upon "Abba".

Regards

[kosta50]

[re Orthodox statement that in baptism one dies to his sinful life...] How can a baby die to his sinful life if he hasn't committed any sins yet?

I believe annalex and jo kus beat me to this. It refers to the future. If a person continues to live in faith, receiving sacraments, being spiritually alive, he will have died to his sinful tendencies imparted to him by his fallen nature. Baptism is the initiation into the life of the Church; it is the entry into Christian life.

How can this happen without any free will? I think it's been said that the free will is supplied by proxy through the parents, but that doesn't really make logical sense, does it? "I will exercise your free will FOR YOU"? The poor baby has no idea what is happening to him. The baby doesn't want to be baptized, he wants his binky! :) His will is being totally overrun here

The godparents are the spiritual parents of the child who guide him or her in the life of the Church until that child can do it on his or her own. This is no different than parents being the caretakers of their children and preparing them, sometimes against their will, to become responsible and virtuous human beings.

In the process of raising our children, we are often in a position to overrun their wills and impose ours. We do it knowing that it is for their good, and we know that they will do the same to their children, and for the same reason.

[D-fendr]

What do the dead say when they speak to you?

Well, I should separate things: the Communion of Saints is more like, well, communion. A sharing, a togetherness, an awareness of the presence of all the Saints, with us. This awareness is particularly accute during Holy Eucharist or the Litany of the Saints. it is a hard thing to describe in words, but it is real.

With St. Mary, it is different. She is like a spiritual mother, a wordless comfort. And, with my deceased mother, it is quite different again. We were very close and went through very difficult times alone together. Her presence and communication is the strongest, though I could not say there are words either.

I thought pretty much everyone had this experience or "conversation" with departed loved ones. Of some kind anyway. Never for you?

thanks for your reply,

[kosta50]

I don't know of any evidence in the Bible that supports the idea that any of the righteous ever went to hell

Unless they repented, I believe they would all go to hell. Unless they have forgiven those who trespassed against them, they could not ask God to forgive their trespasses. Those who showed no mercy can expect no mercy, the Scripture says.

Adam and Eve did not repent, so they would be in hell. Moses murdered a man in revenge. And what is your definition of salvation? It is to accept Jesus as your God and Savior? I don't think there is another way. Well, they didn't know Him -- even if we speculate that they would have recognized Him, they still didn't accept Him because they lived before He did, so they died without knowing Him and without specifically accepting Him.