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

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

[D-fendr]

Interesting. Do you think we can conceive of what being a spirit creature is like very much? Some? Or not at all?

Also, what is meant by above angels in glory? Is it a reference to beatific vision?

[HarleyD]

"...do you understand by now that the apostolic succession is quite simply, transmission of apostolic authority from bishop to bishop...

Yes, and do you understand this is not the way it was transmitted to Paul and Apollos.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I've got to get out more...

Netflix.

[1000 silverlings]

Yes, for having the gift of the HS, we are new creatures in Christ, (2Co 5:17), so we have a taste of it. Don't you think it's marvellous?

Angels as I understand it, are static creatures. They can never be more than they were created to be. Thus Satan's jealousy of Adam. Mankind can become the children of God, so the difference in like between an heir and a servant.

[1000 silverlings]

Good idea. I have cable, pay per view, and I wind up watching Little House on the Prairie or Andy Griffith.

[D-fendr]

I think we have a taste of it too. I think awe and wonder are close to timelessness/eternity experiences. I think sometimes we're given a glimpse and don't realize it.

Don't you think it's marvellous?

Incredibly so.

Angels as I understand it, are static creatures… so the difference in like between an heir and a servant.

Never thought of it like that. Very interesting, thank you.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lol. Lately I watch "24." One episode and I was hooked.

[1000 silverlings]

lol, that is exactly why I have never watched it. I'll wait for the re-runs when it's on 15 channels, lol, and i can catch it whenever..

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Angels as I understand it, are static creatures. They can never be more than they were created to be. Thus Satan's jealousy of Adam. Mankind can become the children of God, so the difference in like between an heir and a servant.

That is the essence of "City of Angels." If fact, the movie makes more sense with that in mind.

[1000 silverlings]

Yes, they were never in need of a Savior so never needed redemption. Nor can get it, if Satan and his followers are to be cast into the pit.

[D-fendr]

You know I hadn't connected the two. I did see in it an old quote from somewhere, I think it's a jewish saying, "The angels envy us because we have a story."

[HarleyD]

Mary wasn't quasi God, she was just a human

The problem for our Orthodox and Catholic friends in all of this is, in order to keep Mary as a Co-Redeemer of the faith, it becomes necessary to elevate her beyond reason; a sinless being capable of sinning but never doing so. Scripturally, Mary Magdalene played a larger supporting role than Mary. And, while our friends have deny all the various and multiple verses about Mary having children, the very plain and simple truth is:

"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Rom 3:23

When it states that all have sinned it includes Mary. She was a sinner in need of a Savior; just like all of us. This is the plain truth of the gospel.

[1000 silverlings]

It's a reasoning as well that leads them into all sorts of circuitous and flawed theology. Forgetting that Jesus emptied Himself: (Phillipians 2:6

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: )

It was imperative for his earthly mother to be only human, although an observant and obedient Jew, which she was. In fact, by making her equal with God, doesn't that not only cheapen, but actually refute, the above quoted passage?

[Forest Keeper]

There were hundreds of scrolls of various "gospels" circulating in the developing Christian world, especially those written by Gnostics. Such Gnostic "scriptures" were interspersed throughout churches and read in public, masquerading as apostolic writing. The Church had to separate the inspired from the profane.

Yes, I have no doubt that one of the main and immediate benefits of the scripture was to pour cold water on all the error that was circulating at the time. My "beef" was about the idea that it was men who DECIDED to compile the scripture into the Bible. I would say that God ordained it from the beginning, so it was really His decision.

[Agrarian]

"... in order to keep Mary as a Co-Redeemer of the faith..."

It is a minor point given the great gap between Protestant and Orthodox belief (and the relative closeness of Orthodox and Catholic beliefs from a Protestant point of view), but the title of co-Redemptrix is not one that the Orthodox Church gives to the Theotokos.

A difference between our approaches can be seen in our "basic" prayers to Mary, and the centrality of said prayers.

RC: Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.


Orthodox:
Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos (birthgiver of God),
Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the Fruit of thy womb,
for thou hast borne Christ, the Savior of our souls.

While the "Hail, Mary" is the most common prayer in Catholic piety due to its repetition in the Rosary, overwhelmingly the most common prayer in Orthodox piety is the Jesus Prayer:

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner." (or the common briefer version: "Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me.")

Again, none of this is perhaps very significant, but for completeness I wanted to point it out.

[D-fendr]

I think I say both about equally, perhaps the Jesus prayer more.

I guess I'm Roman Orthodox.

:)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I haven't read it yet, but here's what Calvin has to say in "The Institutes" about angels and their role in creation...

BOOK 1; CHAPTER 14

[Agrarian]

"But Mary did not receive anything different that the sanctifying grace we receive."

This does not seem to mesh with the text of the Papal encyclical regarding the Immaculate Conception, which, as I understand it, does not reflect just an absence of the spot and stain of original sin, but also filling her with a plenitude of graces from the moment of her conception -- such that she has excess grace and merit that can be applied to others. I haven't the time right now to look it up, but I think you know the passages I refer to.

I do not believe that Catholicism teaches that at the moment of baptism, that one is automatically filled with grace in this way.

On the other hand, the Orthodox belief is that Mary reached a state of theosis that can and never will be attained by anyone else, since for 9 months her blood mingled with that of Christ, and her body enveloped the uncircumscriable God. This is a degree of union that left her changed forever, and is impossible for anyone else ever to experience. I would imagine that we would agree on this point -- but would disagree on the starting point.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hello Forest Keeper,

Thank you for the ping. I can see that you are a very attentive reader of Scripture, a critical thinker, and that you would be a good person with whom to study Scripture. I am looking forward to hearing more about what you believe in the future. Unfortunately, I’m short on time, and will not be able participate fully in this discussion at this time. I will, however, do my best to respond to several of your comments.

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.

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

The question, (upon which a considerable amount of energy has been expended on this thread and elsewhere on Free Republic,) is this: does this disprove the historical tradition of the Christian Church that Mary the mother of Jesus was a perpetual virgin? Is it not reasonable to read this and assume that because this common translation states that Jesus had brothers and sisters, that his mother must have had sex after the birth of our Lord? Doesn't this passage conclusively prove that Mary was not a perpetual virgin? These are all reasonable questions. In fact, some might even go so far as to insinuate that these two verses single handedly discredit Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, thereby demonstrating the superiority of modern Bible Based Christianity to the Apostolic Church. In fact, I can't think of any other reason why so much time and energy would be dedicated by Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians to making the point that Mary the Mother of our Savior had an active sex life after the birth of the Christ. It is, after all, a question which has no bearing on the theology of salvation for these two movements. From an Evangelical Protestant perspective, the question is entirely one that concerns someone else’s theology. (When last I was on FR, someone pinged me about half a dozen times to tell me that "Jesus and Mary had sex." According to this person, she knew this because, "God said so."

Basically, Forest Keeper, none of us believe that Jesus had any full siblings, because they would have had God as their father and Mary as their mother. The discussion boils down to whether the word "adelphoi," translated here as "brothers,"; should be interpreted to mean half-brothers, step-brothers, or perhaps cousins, as it sometimes does in Greek.

So let's look at the brothers of Jesus and see if we can answer this question. The Scripture you quoted above lists four brothers of Jesus, namely, James, Joseph (aka Joses,) Simon and Judas.

Let's start with Jesus'; brother, James. Who is he? Well, he must be James the brother of our Lord. " “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.” (Gal 1:18, 19) Here St. Paul tells us that he met James the brother of our Lord, and that this James was an Apostle, along with Peter. Later in the Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul tells us: " “and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Gal 2:9) Here we see that James is “a Pillar” a leader in the community on a par with Peter and the Apostle John. Other verses in the New Testament underscore that James was a person who had significant authority and who was respected in the early Church. For example, he speaks at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 to establish practices for gentile Christians. So James the brother of our Lord is an Apostle and a Pillar. Now there were two Apostles by the name of James. James the brother of John, and son of Zebedee, (not of Joeseph,) also surnamed with his brother John by Jesus, as “the sons of Thunder,” and the other James. Since James the brother of John and son of Zebedee was martyred at an early date (Acts 12:12), we can make a reasonable guess that James the brother of our Lord and “pillar” is the other James, the James who addressed the council of Jerusalem, commonly known as “James the less.” The lists of the Apostles in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell us whose son he was: " “The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.” (Matt 10: 2-4, see also Luke 6: 14 and Mark 3: 17) So the Gospels concur that James, “the brother of our Lord” was actually not the son of Joeseph, but rather of Alphaeus. Elsewhere, they identify him as the son of a woman named Mary, but a Mary who is not identified as the mother of Jesus, but rather as the mother of “James the less.” "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salo'me, who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem. (Mark 15: 40,41.) The Evangelist Luke also identifies her as the Mother of James in Luke 25:10. He separately identifies Mary the mother of Jesus as “the mother of Jesus” in Acts 1: 14. So James “the brother of our Lord” turns out to be the son of Alphaeus and a different Mary. This indicates that at least one of the people listed as a brother of Jesus in Matthew 13:55, 56 was not actually his full brother, but rather a close relative.

James the brother of our Lord has a different mother and father. Furthermore, this “Mary the mother of James” also has another son named Joses. "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salo'me, who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him; and also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem. (Mark 15: 40,41.) Forest Keeper, that’s my best understanding of “James and Joses,” from Matthew 13:55,56. They are not the children of Mary, the mother of Jesus. In fact, cousins to Jesus sounds like a reasonable guess.

What about the other two, Simon and Judas? Well, Scripture nowhere tells us that either Joesph or Mary had other children, and we have just seen that the first two “brothers” listed had different parents, so it’s possible that these two gentlemen also have different parents. In fact, we can make a reasonable guess regarding who Judas is. Perhaps Judas is Jude, “the brother of James”? “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ:” (Jude 1:1) So here we see the author of the Epistle of Jude identifying himself as a brother to James. James who? How about James the “pillar.” James who addressed the Church at the Council of Jerusalem, James the brother of our Lord? The first question we want to ask ourselves is, why does Jude identify himself as the brother of James, and not the brother of our Lord? Now, if we believe that the Epistle of Jude is actually Apostolic, the author would be Jude Thadeus, listed as one of the twelve Apostles. (We don’t actually know who any of the authors of Scripture are. We take it on the faith of the Church that they are actually legitimate.) If we look at the list of Apostles, we see that Jude Thadeus is actually the son of James. My best guess, Forest Keeper, is that the author of Jude is actually the son of James the less. This may or may not be the same individual listed as one of the “brothers of Jesus” in Matthew 13: 55, 56. But since, as we have seen that James the brother of our Lord, also listed in Matthew 13:55, 56 is in fact James the Apostle and pillar, it is a reasonable guess to say that Jude the “brother” of James is the same person as “Judas” the brother of James and Jesus. According to the lists of the Apostles in the synoptic Gospels, this individual is actually the son of James, not of Joesph and Mary.

Matt. 1:24-25 : 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."

Here is the other verse used to prove that Mary and Joseph had sex. What the verse does not say, however, is that Joesph and Mary had sex. The point of the passage is to convey to the reader that Jesus was born to a virgin. That is to say, something extraordinary happened in the birth of Jesus, and this something opens the possibility that Jesus is divine. The verse is taken beyond it’s original intent to argue that Joseph must have had sex with the mother of our Lord. Those who assert that this is proof positive of a sexual relationship actually read the word ‘til’ or “until” to mean “until after.” That’s a reasonable inference, but so also is the interpretation that it means prior to the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations, which is all that the passage intends to convey.

The Scriptures nowhere tell us that Mary had sexual relations with a man, nor do they tell us that she had other biological children. It is reasonable to assume that, because she married Joseph, the two would have had sexual relations. However, this belief is precisely that, an assumption, and not Scripture. It is also reaonsalbe to to interpret Matt 1:24, 25 as implying (not stating) that Mary and Joesph may have had sex after the birth of the Redeemer. If they did, in fact, have other children, it is hard to believe that Mary would have gone to live with the Apostle John after the death of Christ. Why not just stay with her own children? Also, where were these other half dozen children during the finding in the temple? Scripture makes no mention of them, but only says that after Mary and Joeseph left their kinsfolk in the caravan, they said, "your father and I have been searching for you with great anxiety." Lastly, there is the quesiton of scandal and hypocrosy in the founding of the Church. If the Epistle of James is Apostolic, then the author is James the less. If tthe men mentioned in Matthew 13:55, 56 are Christ's brothers, then James preaches that true religion before God is to care for the widow and the orphan in their affliction, but he himself did not take care of his own widowed mother.

Scripture , is silent on the issue of Mary's perpetual virginity. It neither directly supports nor refutes that doctrine. For Catholics and Orthodox Christians, the belief has been handed down since the earliest times that Mary remained a virgin perpetually, as did her Son. There is a historical witness to this belief that dates to the earliest centuries of the Christian era, and the Fathers of the Church, such as St. Augustine and St Jerome energetically attacked heretics who claimed otherwise. As a Catholic, that is sufficient enough for me to believe it.

The most important argument, however, is found in the fact that nowhere in the New Testament is anyone else except Jesus called the ''son" of Mary. He is always pointed out as her Son. Nor is she ever called the mother of anyone else. She is always referred to as the mother of JESUS.

“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! :)”

Thank you for the warm welcome, Forest Keeper, you are a welcome addition to the religious discussion on Free Republic. Don’t worry about the slow responses, mine will probably be very slow as well. In fact, I will have to drop out of the conversation periodically. Not to worry, I’m sure I can catch you around post 12,000. ;-) I expect to have a few more minutes this evening, and will see if I can respond to a few of your other points. Hope you are having an enjoyable spring evening.

-iq

[InterestedQuestioner]

"...overwhelmingly the most common prayer in Orthodox piety is the Jesus Prayer:

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner." (or the common briefer version: "Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me.")

That's an absolutely beautiful prayer, Agrarian. Do you know this one?

"Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins and protect us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls into heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy."