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

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

[Full Court]

I thought pretty much everyone had this experience or "conversation" with departed loved ones.

As a Christian, I don't attempt to hold seances with the dead.

[Full Court]

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

That wasn't the question.

The question remains unanswered by you.

What do the dead say when they answer you?

[Forest Keeper]

Hello Forest Keeper,

Hi IQ! --- (you just knew I was going to walk right into that one, didn't you. :)

I'm sorry for my delay in responding. I'm trying to read every post so I am frequently a few days behind. Thank you very much for your response and welcome back to FR! :)

Actually, FK, Scripture nowhere says that Mary had any other children. The Scriptures are silent on this subject.

I wouldn't say the Scriptures are silent. There is still the underlying passage of this conversation:

Matt. 13: 55-56 : 55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

The whole structure of this passage just screams out at me that the reference is to blood siblings. First, the father is identified. The only possible knowledge the "people" could have had was that Joseph was a blood father. Then, the "people" identify Mary, His blood mother. Then, four individuals are named as His "brothers". Then, some who are unnamed are mentioned as His sisters. I just can't buy that all within the same, single thought, it went from naming the closest relatives to Him (mother and reference to "father") to naming distant relatives, if they were relatives at all.

Any attempt to answer the question about the virginity of Mary after the birth of the Christ must move beyond Scripture.

What about this scripture? :

Matt. 1:24-25 : 24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (emphasis added)

[D-fendr]

Ok. Well, thanks for the discussion and best wishes..

[Forest Keeper]

We must conclude, it seems, that God prevented any inspired work from being lost.

This is my view as well, and thanks for your other comments.

[D-fendr]

I am still wondering about your view of the dead. Are they asleep? Or..?

[jo kus]

Jo, was the light at Mount Tabor created or uncreated in your understanding?

NOOOOO!!!! Don't ask me that! Anything but that! I am finding that the theology of grace is much more complicated than my pea brain can handle right now. I need more time to get a working knowledge of this so that I can type without having to go back to books and paste and clip. That's not my style. If I can't explain something in my own words, than I need to study more. I would be interested to hear your take, however, knowing that I still don't quite have the knowledge that I would like to have from the Latin side.

brother in Christ

[kosta50]

But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son

That is the "troubling" verse for which I was both praised and gently rebuked. The trouble is in the word until, or till as it is translated in some versions.

You are understanding it as something in the past revealing what happened in the future -- as in: they had no relations until then, but afterwards they did. There is no support for that interpretation

The word until is always indicative of the past, whether it is used as a preposition or a conjunction. The way it was understood (correctly) by the Church in the original Greek language is "leading up to" and does in no way suggest or witness anything following His Birth.

I will admit that the choice of words is somewhat "troubling," but that the intended message of the verse is to ascertain that BEV Mary was a virgin at the time she gave birth ot Jesus, and that there is no attempt here to suggest that +Jospeh and BEV had marital relations after Jesus' Birth.

[jo kus]

If Mary had taken a childhood vow of virginity for all her life, then why in the universe would she have agreed to become betrothed?

According to the Apocrypha, to protect Mary's virginity. By betrothing Mary to an elderly and righteous man as Joseph, Mary's virginity would be intact AND she would be provided for financially. This is not an unusual scheme, except to the 21st century American who is fixated on sex.

Regards

[kosta50]

just can't buy that all within the same, single thought, it went from naming the closest relatives to Him (mother and reference to "father") to naming distant relatives, if they were relatives at all

They could have been +Joseph's children form previous marriage and in that context would not have been seen as "distant" relatives.

[jo kus]

What do the dead say when they answer you?

I don't speak with the dead. We are alive in Christ, even beyond the grave. Have you not read the end of Romans chapter 8? Even death shall not separate us from the love of Christ. Is not God a God of the living?

Regards

[jo kus]

One Orthodox priest once said it's like getting a visa to America and all you have is a dinghy at the coast of France (and a whole Atlantic Ocean in between)! You have been given the visa and you have a dinghy, but it's up to you to undertake the voyage; you must want it, and you must initiate it. There will be tribulations and temptations and storms and obstacles that you must overcome to get there, and the only way you will accomplish this is if you persevere to the end, even if you perish trying. Living or dying is not an issue here; nor is it important as far as our salvation is concerned.

Yes, that's a good analogy. It is apparent our Protestant brothers have a totally different concept of who God is and our relationship with Him. I guess it comes from Luther's totally corrupt man who cannot do anything without God doing it for man. We supposedly are not puppets or we supposedly have free will, but then we cannnot do anything, God must do it for us. There seems to be a disconnect between what they say in one post and what they say in another.

Regards

[jo kus]

But, more importantly, without man capable of receiving grace, the entire idea of grace becomes meaningless.

I think Protestants go in the opposite extreme - that man needs God to do EVERYTHING. Man cannot cooperate, man cannot persevere, man cannot obey the commandments. Basically, man is so corrupt that everything he does is sinful, even when cooperating with God. Thus, God tells man to "take a knee, I'll do everything". It is a strange system, as it nullifies much of Scripture's eloquent plea for man to follow God. It goes over their heads that God is calling out to man as a lover calls to his betrothed. FK, have you read the Song of Songs and some of the many Church Fathers' interpretations on them? This is a spirtualized version in very human language of God's calling to His Bride, the Church. Your version of God sounds like a strange marriage...

Regards

[kosta50]

I guess it comes from Luther's totally corrupt man who cannot do anything without God doing it for man

My favorite one is their idea of repentance: you repent because God leads us to repent. Of course He does, but do we always make use of that opportunity?

We believe we don't repent because we are ungrateful to God, and not for lack of opportunity, placing the blame squarely on us, the sinners; they think that those who don't repent were not given the opportunity to repent, because God hates them! It's all God's doing! Didn't Adam suggest something similar?

But those who "know" they have been "saved" can go on sinning boldly -- they know God will forgive them anyway! Comfy, isn't it? I would say that it is the ultimate in a religion made for, and by men.

[kosta50]

kosta to jo FK, jo kus: But, more importantly, without man capable of receiving grace, the entire idea of grace becomes meaningless

jo kus to kosta, FK: I think Protestants go in the opposite extreme - that man needs God to do EVERYTHING

Jo, asserting that grace is meaningless if there is no man to receive it is not extreme. Protestant total depravity is.

[annalex]

apostolic succession is "after the fact"? Someone just declares themself to be a Cardinal and everyone nod their head three years later?

Apostolic succession always follows a movement of the spirit in the consecrated person. In fact, there is much more than that, -- there are years of discernment in the seminary to become a priest, let alone bishop. Cardinals, by the way, have nothing to do with apostolic succession, they are merely bishops that are named by the Pope to be his close advisors.

Apollos did exactly the same thing

Maybe Apollos was ordained and the scripture does not mention it (it is not a church register) or maybe he remained a lay evangelist, of which we have many. I am a lay evangelist too, -- bite me.

[HarleyD]

According to Paul, he went to see Peter for two weeks to ensure that their Gospel agreed.

Three years after preaching the gospel???? I guess Paul's spiritual gift was procrastination.

The exception proves the rule, Harley.

As I posted somewhere between your comment and mine, Paul was not the exception. Apollos had the same experience. Besides, perhaps Luther was an exception as well.

[Forest Keeper]

If I might interject a comment here. The Scriptures often indicate that they were written for specific reasons. For example:

" Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1: 1-4)

Here we see that Luke is compiling the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles with a very specific purpose in mind, in fact, it appears that it was originally written for a single person, Theophilus.

You are singing my tune! :) The little inside gag here is that I am currently using this EXACT passage to try to make a case to Jo Kus (and everyone) that the idea of Sola Scriptura is supported by scripture. So, I'll join you in that specific purposes were in mind. I'll even specify and say that one of them was to clarify that the written word (from an authoritative source) was superior to oral tradition. :)

The Scriptures were revealed by the will of God, and the human authors acted under divine Inspiration. This is the understanding that we Christians have received from the Church. (The Scriptures themselves do not tell us this, rather it is the Church. I would say that, off hand, only the Revelation to John tells us that it is divinely revealed.

I have found it to be a matter of friendly disagreement as to what "divine inspiration" actually means. It boils down to a free will issue, and it has surprised me how many other issues "boil down" to free will. As to scripture for supporting its divine revelation, what would you say about this oft quoted passage? :

2 Tim. 3:16-17 : 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (emphasis added)

---------------

Incidentally, you and I still rely on the Church, however, to tell us that the Revelation to John is Scriptural.

I actually give the nod to God on that one. :)

Martin Luther, for example, is said to have believed that the Revelation to John was not Scriptural.

I think I have read on this thread that he did have objections to it, and some other books, but ultimately he did not excise any books of today's Bible from his beliefs.

Rather, God worked through the human authors working within His Church to create the individual books of Scripture, and He worked through His Church to canonize and preserve the Scriptures.

You have phrased that in a rather thought-provoking way. :) My question would be that if God worked within His Church to create the individual books of the scripture, then why is it that so much interpretation is needed of the scripture to match extra-scriptural Tradition? It would seem to me that if the scripture and Tradition were truly harmonious, then the actual text of the scripture should stand on its own, within reason. Instead, it has been my experience on this thread that the text of scripture must be interpreted to mean things that the words do not say.

Just a very few examples are that "all" does not mean "all" in Rom. 3:23, "Eternal" does not mean "eternal" in verses like John 3:16, and grace is insufficient for salvation despite Eph. 2:8-9. This is never mind important theological issues such as Mary's sinlessness and infant baptism, which are not strongly supported in the Bible. It puzzles me that if God had wanted His Bible to clearly agree with the Tradition practiced, that He would have arranged for the two to more easily work together, without all the stressing and straining.

From what I have learned on this thread, by the standards of today's Catholicism, the Bible is virtually obsolete as a revelation of faith, ON ITS OWN. The Bible appears to only become useful to anyone, through the prism of the Catholic Church. Such a prism is not evident in large part in the Bible itself, it must be added. This seems to me to be a pretty secretive way for God to get the message out and preach to all nations.

[On 1 Cor 5: 9-13] Here we have the Apostle Paul writing to the Corinthians and referencing a previous letter that he has written them. Since this is the first letter to the Corinthians, it is reasonable to assume that St. Paul had written them a previous letter ...

Good find, IQ. That is reasonable support.

[HarleyD]

I would be interested in finding out what other's teaching/belief is about the Saints departed from this existence.

Try The Intermediate State for the short answer.

Try State of the Soul After Death by Charles Hodge for the long answer.

For a very brief explanation:

The common Protestant doctrine on this subject is that "the souls of believers are at their death, made perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory; and their bodies, being still united to Christ, do rest in their graves till the resurrection." According to this view the intermediate state, so far as believers are concerned, is one of perfect freedom from sin and suffering, and of great exaltation and blessedness. This is perfectly consistent with the belief that after the second coming of Christ, and the resurrection of the dead, the state of the soul will be still more exalted and blessed. - Charles Hodge

[annalex]

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?

Jo gave you an answer as well, so I'll try to elaborate in another direction.

We only know in the case of canonized saints because the Church, after rigorous examination of the record of their lives and the miracles they performed after death, guided by the Holy Ghost, reveals their status to us. About others, we are asked to hope and pray. It is, of course, Christ who decides in His sovereign particular judgement.

The Church teaches that one can pray for the soul of anyone dead, but the prayer is efficacious only is the person is in purgatory, where our prayer works to speed (*) his release. If he is is hell, our prayer cannot remove him, and if he is in heaven, there is nothing better for him that our prayers could add. Likewise, one can pray for the intercession of anyone, but the prayer is only efficacious if the person whose intercession is asked is in heaven, and we only know with certainty that the saints are in heaven.

Connected to this is the issue of the theological virtue of hope (1 Corinthians 13:13, 1 Thesssalonians 5:8, Ephesians 1:18). On the two sides of hope are the sin of presumption of one's eventual salvation (Luke 18:10-14) and the sin of despair of it (Matthew 27:3-5). It is not a healthy preoccupation to seek a sense of certainty about the condition of the soul of most departed, and the Church canonizes saints not in order to keep inventory of the saved souls, but to nurture hope.

(*) "Speed" is merely a figure of speech here, as following death the soul exits the temporal realm and so the measure of time cannot be meaningfully applied to the process of purification.