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

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

[kosta50]

My point (really to Kosta) is that in this whole "continuity" discussion that's been going on concerning OT and NT, what does it say if there are OT righteous and NT Apostles standing side by side in an icon like this?

Well, Kolokotronis already clarified that the Apostles were not there, which actually shows that the OT righteous are not given the same grace as Christ's Apostles. I think it is telling that the OT righteous, including John the Baptist, are seen in the Hades but the Apostles are not.

Regarding, the OT-NT issue, I am not disputing the "continuity" because it would mean that am denying that Christianity was born out of the OT Judaism, which would be ridiculous. I am simply saying that Christianity became something other than Judaism. As to which is the "true" faith, Apostolic Christianity or Judaism, we shall all know one day when we leave this life. There can only be one rightfull heir to the true faith: one or none, but not both.

I am simply saying that although Christianity draws its roots from Judaism, it is not recognizable as Judaism, just as the United States has recognizable English and European foundations, but is neither English nor European. They are not one and the same. They both draw their roots in the OT revelation, which, as Christians we must confess is incomplete, unfulfilled but prophetic, and messianic.

We cannot simply say that God bestowed His grace on the Jews and the OT righteous and that they would for sure recognize Christ if they had seen Him, as Elijah and Moses recognized Him on Mount Tabor; by then, they both had "inside information." :)

I think it would be a correct Orthodox statement that God gives His grace to all, believers and non-believers alike. So, the OT righteous were no exception in that regard, because Christ is the true Light, who by his grace enlighted every man that come into the world, but the world "knew him not." (Cf John 1:9-10).

Thus, Scripture tells us that everyone who was ever born received God's grace as part of His Redemptive Economy, making it possible for anyone to become righteous by cleaving to God, as the OT righteous did. That by and of itself does not mean they would recognize Christ. For that, one needs illumination, and that is an altoghether different subject...right Kolo? :)

[monkfan]

We are known by our fruits.

And quoting out of context is what kind of fruit exactly?

Yours are passing their expiration date.

HA! This from you! I didn't realize hypocrisy was a virtue in the PCA.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I've been posting on this forum for five years, and I've learned that your type of sarcastic, empty comments are to be avoided.

Kindly stop spoiling the thread and find someone else to harass.

[kosta50]

Having given this more thought, I agree now that this is a theological difference that goes much deeper than just the timing of The Blessed Virgin's state of sinlessness

It will be a major stumbling block. Agrarian has very aptly explained the Orthodox belief: the fact that she was subject to death does not make her a pre-fall Eve, even if she never sinned. You on the other hand show the Western Church's belief that for a co-sinner, there was a need for a co-redeemer. It sounds elegant but is not true by necessity: since Christ is the Second (pre-Fall) Adam, Mary must be the Second (pre-Fall) Eve.

I just see her as Theotokos, one human being who, if for no other reason than as a mother of the most precious Child, had to love God with all her mind, heart and soul and therefore "naturally" cleaved closer to Him than any of us can.

[annalex]

Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" ([Luke 1:34])

Mary, whether she knew about Isaiah or not, in no way believe that she would conceive in the "normal" way.

This is a strange conclusion. The question you quote betrays the assumption on the part of Mary that for the Angel's prediction to be true, she would have a regular conception following a marital act. It is in the next verse that the Angel explains the supernatural character of her impregnation.

[annalex]

2 Timothy 3:13-17 in no way supports Sola Scriptura. All it says is that a member of the Catholic clergy will profit from reading the scripture when he needs to reproof Calvine or some other heretic. But it does not saty that Monkfan's knowledge of the divine Revelation is limited to the canonical scripture.

[HarleyD]

Well, I must admit I went back and reread these posts a little bit closer. At the risk of making light of your traditions; I believe your argument that Mary was dedicated to being a virgin, married the old couth Joseph just so she could devote herself to prayer when he kicked the bucket, sounds a bit self-serving of Mary doesn’t it. What about poor Joseph?

I suppose your entire argument rest upon the simple phrase, "Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" (Luk 1:34) If she knew from Isaiah 7 that the Messiah was going to be brought forth by a virgin, then why would she asked that question? Is this correct?

Mary was isn’t questioning God’s angel through unfaithfulness as Zachariah did. Mary was simply questioning the mechanics of the situation. Mary is asking HOW can a virgin bring forth a Messiah. I must admit I would probably ask the same question, "How is this going to happen?" Many of the Old Testament prophets did the same thing including Moses when God told him he was going to give the children of Israel meat. Moses asked HOW-not through unfaithfulness but of curiosity.

Please note the angel’s response:

Luk 1:34-35 Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

Mary was simply asking how God was going to bring about this miracle. The angel told her how it was going to be done. You will find this part is not covered in Isaiah 7. Mary was simply curious.

[HarleyD]

It is in the next verse that the Angel explains the supernatural character of her impregnation.

My thoughts exactly. Please see post #5947 above.

[annalex]

there is the question of why God would wait so long

Why is this question posed anew by the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? The economy of salvation is such that the Jewish culture had to mature, through repeated bondage and liberation, so that the standard of ritualistic purity at the core of Judaism could culminate in the Immaculate Conception that men would pray for, recognize (on some mystical level) when it happens, and protect from defilement, as the Protoevangelium shows.

[HarleyD]

My point was that I'm unclear as to what precisely Apostlic succession is. After all, Paul and Apollos were not appointed by the Jerusalem council and never even saw the members until many years later. I have not been provided a good definition by any Catholics here and, quite honestly, I went to newadvent and they failed to fully explain it to my satisfaction. So how can I expect anyone here to give me an answer; yet everyone throws the term around.

I suppose it is another "mystery" of the Church.

I am sure Harley recognized "You should read the Bible once in a while" as a common teasing

I take no offense at anything. I am a rock. (No-you can't build a church on me.)

[Forest Keeper]

[On baptism] 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.

So really, the baby isn't actually dead to the former nature/tendencies at baptism. He really is only dead to what was, AFTER the completion of the race. So what good is actually accomplished at baptism vis-a-vis the fallen nature if it is only good until the first (mortal) sin? If a baby dies before his first sin he is "covered", right? So, what is the difference between two babies who die, with one having been baptized and the other not? In the salvational sense, if the same two do not die, then are they both not in the same spot upon their first sin?

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.

Yes, but this exactly the argument your side rails against when it comes to accepting Christ. For that, free will must reign supreme, there can be no coercion from our "spiritual godparent" (God). So, it is fine for earthly godparents to overrule the child for his own spiritual good, but you deny that ability to God for his children who are of age. Are humans who have existed for only a handful of years really in such a superior position to be able to make literally eternal decisions for their own good? I don't give man that much credit.

[monkfan]

That's rich. You quote me out of context and somehow I'm harrassing you.

When you twist the truth around like that, what kind of fruit do you credit yourself with, Doc?

[annalex]

told that animal masses were good and profitable

I was talking about St. Francis calling us to preach the Gospel to animals. But preaching is not what Mass is. No, I would not say that animals should come to Mass. Should animals come to Protestant sermons? No, -- unsound doctrine.

St. Francis Preaching to Birds

[annalex]

Did my post quoting Catholic.com not satisfy?

Briefly, apostolic succession is a chain of consecration in the sacrament of Holy Orders, of bishops, starting at the Twelve.

[Agrarian]

Very reasonable. So if I am understanding you correctly, the Catholic belief is that the IC awaited a "ripening," so to speak of the Jewish people -- which is similar to the Orthodox view. The main difference is that at that moment, God acted supernaturally to cause a conception (that of Mary) that was different from ordinary human conception, even though it was the result of a union of man and woman.

Something about this still bothers me -- it strikes me as having parallels to the Protestant view of the conception of Christ as a pure act of God's will (just backed up a generation), but I'll have to think about it before I commit to an observation to that effect.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply; that's pretty much where my question was headed.

The two statements:

1) "Men were created in the image of God,"

2) "We are blood and bones and instinct"

would seem to contradict unless there's an "and" in between.

Or maybe it's just looking at the same thing from different perspectives and different times.

Thanks for your post.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I was talking about St. Francis calling us to preach the Gospel to animals.

Why would you imagine it advisable to preach the Gospel to animals? Do they have souls? Do they sin? Are they in need of redemption by Christ's atonement?

[jo kus]

Both St. Paul and Apollo, as well as Jo Kus and I have taught without a formal sanction from a bishop. Obviously, any time my bishop corrects me or silences me I will obey, as I do not argue my opinions as such, but in consonance with the teaching of the Church. Something similar happened to Apollo. He, or Jo Kus (I presume) or I are not in the line of apostolic succession and cannot speak but tentatively on behalf of the Church; but to speak we are encouraged, as it is our Catholic Christian duty to witness the Gospel.

I agree completely with everything Annalex said. If someone finds I have misrepresented the Catholic faith and is able to show that, I must humbly submit my obedience to this teaching. We believe that God has given the Church, not individuals, the charism of infallibility. Christianity is a revealed religion - objectively so, not subjectively to the whims of society OR Catholics who are wrong on a Catholic teaching!

Regards

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You seemed to have lost half my quote.

"Men were created in the image of God, and fell by the sin of disobedience and pride.

Thus, no contradiction. Pre-fall. Post-fall.

Do you believe we should preach the Gospel to animals? And if so, to what end?

[jo kus]

Well, I'll have to ask for some help then, because if you had asked me I would have said that this is EXACTLY classical Protestantism. :) At regeneration, I do believe that the old (sinful nature) is gone and the new (God-pleasing nature) has come. However, a remnant of the sinful nature remains, hence we still sin.

That is not my understanding of Luther or Calvin's concept of man's situation, even after regeneration. They both claimed that man was a pile of crap covered with snow (the righteousness of Christ), since man was so corrupt and unable to cooperate whatsoever. Thus, the need for external justification (rather than imputed - which some Protestants do actually agree with us Catholics, such as the Methodists, although it is slightly different). Classic Calvinist/Lutheran anthropology leaves man in such a state that we absolutely can do nothing and that Luther even said we are sin AND graced simultaneously - sin on the inside and graced legally in status. Your current view sounds more Catholic or Wesleyian

I do think that man is responsible for his sin, that the elect do persevere, and that obedience is expected of men.

If so, you disagree with the classic Reformers - congratulations! Naturally, I would be interested to hear your theories on how man is responsible if he cannot cooperate? And further, who is being called to persevere? Man or God? Finally, if obedience is expected, wouldn't we presume that man has the ability to obey?

I just give God all the credit when this (the good) happens.

Sure, He gets the credit for being the First Cause. But He also expects us to cooperate - as a conglomeration of man and Christ abiding within us, we CAN take credit, or merit heaven - since God has promised it to those who obey Him.

When I choose correctly, then I give thanks to God for His working through me.

That is a good thing - I can't argue with that!

Regards