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

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

[jo kus]

Peter. He failed in his mission.

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

I don't get it. They shake hands in friendship, Paul realizing whom the pillars of the community are - and Peter has failed, from this verse? Wow!

Keep looking

[jo kus]

Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Does it say "written" word? No, the voice of God does not come to man by letters on a page - but through the LIPS of prophets and messengers. Don't forget that. The Bible is full of such men...

Regards

[jo kus]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

Christ was the incarnation of God's word.

Yes - the Word is not written, it is a Person... The word of God comes to us through the lips of prophets and messengers, with Jesus Christ being the ultimate messenger of God. God's Word is not relegated to written letters.

Regards

[jo kus]

For we also say that the church is the interpreter of Scripture, and that the gift of interpretation resides only in the church: but we deny that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular see or succession of men.”

Well, he started out OK, but then he broke his own rule... You see, the Church had already interpreted Apostolic Succession of men from the Scriptures for 1500 years before Luther et. al. came along...

Regards

[jo kus]

Gentlemen (and/or ladies), I have enjoyed our conversations and discussions, but I will be away for several days - I am not ignoring you. I will try to respond when I return.

Have a blessed weekend.

[1000 silverlings]

lol, nice try, but your "Church" does not equal my "church". Have a good weekend, nice talking to you too.

[D-fendr]

Ok, I think I'm finally understanding your problem with the term:

Mary, as "MOTHER of God" and as the term is used, implies she was sinless,

To me it's a separate point and when I use the word "mother" it doesn't carry with it "sinless" only "mother." But I finally see that you do and therefore the term offends.

So it is the Catholic teaching rather than the actual word that you object to. I would wonder then why you would object to the word if it were used by a church not teaching the parts you object to. Or would this be ok?

The rest of the theology is really not my interest here. It's the Incarnation and the important and simple fact that Jesus had a mother.

How about "mother of our Lord"? You are ok with this, yes? It's solely the theological baggage you see with "mother of God." that's the problem, right?

thanks for your reply.

[wmfights]

"You see, the Church had already interpreted Apostolic Succession of men from the Scriptures for 1500 years..."

_______________________________________

From what passages?

There are no Apostles alive today?

[HarleyD]

But I finally see that you do and therefore the term offends.

Ho, ho. You obviously don't know me very well. I'm not offended in the least. All of us are account to God for our own actions. What you believe is your business. I can only point out where I believe you are in error. Many can tell me where I'm wrong and I'll investigate whether these things are so. We'll see in the end.

The rest of the theology is really not my interest here. It's the Incarnation and the important and simple fact that Jesus had a mother.

If we're going to argue whether our Lord had a "mother" then there's not much to discuss. I'm sure the rest of the theology isn't of interest here; certainly not to discuss Mary's capability for sin.

How about "mother of our Lord"? You are ok with this, yes?

Didn't I say somewhere back this was the proper interpretation? Everyone would agree to that.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The work is over.

Amen. The work of our redemption is complete and finished by Christ who took upon Himself to pay in full for every sin, past and future, committed by those whom He came to gather and bring home, according to God's will. He will lose none of them.

The work of our sanctification, which is the work of the Holy Spirit within us guiding us in obedience and gratitude, is on-going until we see His face.

"But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." -- Titus 3:4-7

[annalex]

Kindness is not the Gospel.

It is not the entire gospel, but it is a part that we are to preach to animals because that is the part that they can understand, and is linked to how the second coming of Christ will affect them.

Preach the Gospel always, use words if necessary. -- St. Francis.

[annalex]

But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. (2 Samuel 12:23)

David here is expressing the assuredness of death. The topic is assuredness of salvation of the unbaptized. John 3:5 teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. Are you really arguing that an Old Testament verse that teaches no theology overwrites the direct words of Christ as he teaches the theology of baptism?

[D-fendr]

I'm not offended in the least.

Didn't mean anything by it, should have used "object to."

If we're going to argue whether our Lord had a "mother" then there's not much to discuss.

Good. That's what I was focusing on. "Birthgiver" to me sounds something like "biological mother" or a term used to mean someone who gave birth then dissappeared from the baby's life. It's incomplete compared to "mother." I think it's a key point of the Incarnation, that Jesus had a mother, shared in our humanity in this regard. It's also an important point in theology, Christology, the Trinity, Christ is God and had a human mother, but that's not what I was focusing on.

Didn't I say somewhere back this [Mother of Our Lord] was the proper interpretation?

Then I'll take it. :) Thanks for your reply.

[wmfights]

"Mary is not "co redeemer."

The Holy one of Israel needeth no help."
____________________________________________

FC: I love your passion!

I've wondered if Mary truly knew who JESUS was prior to the resurrection. If she knew he was GOD in Man how could she rebuke him when he stayed behind at the temple and later when he had started his ministry she went with his brothers to bring him home because he was "out of his mind".

My conjecture is that she thought he was a prophet.

[D-fendr]

At the very very least, kindness is an indication of spiritual health and cruelty one of spiritual dis-ease.

[annalex]

Why is your salvation based on what you do, not what Jesus did for you?

I was going to post an answer based on Matthew 25 last night, but my Internet connection died. I am now glad it did, because now we have this insightful rejoinder from Dr. Eckleburg in 6216:

From before the foundation of the world, that excellent question has separated the sheep from the goats.

Wonderful. Indeed, sheep and goats are separated based on what we do:

31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.

[...]

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me.

[...]

46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

(Matthew 25)

[annalex]

Those quotes indeed tell us of the anticipation of Christ our Redeemer, that the Hebrews had. You point was?

[annalex]

The Greek word for "grace" that used in this verse is not the word for the gift of salvation, but the common word for favor

This is, sadly, a typical Protestant misrepresentation of the Greek Gospel. The word is "kecharitomene", irregularly formed past perfect participle of "to bestow grace" ("charitomenos/e" would be the regular formation). The word stem is "charis", almost without exception translated as "grace" in the King James' version. Especially where the theology of grace is established by Paul, "charis" is translated as "grace" consistently. "Favor" is of course a possible translation outside of the theological context, where "grace" is a term of art. The only reason King James chose to insert "favor" in Luke 1:28 is to obfuscate the fact that it is divine grace that Mary has received, not merely a favor.

The only other place the word form is used in the New Testament is Eph 1:6 "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." The phrase "made us accepted" is the same word form.

This is flat wrong and betrays somoene who is not reading Greek, but does not mind lying about the Gospel. I'd like to know who your source is, so we can avoid that author. "eis epainon doxes tes charitos autou en e echaritosen emas en to egapemeno" (Eph 1:6). Check for yourself at Unbound Bible. "Kecharitomene" does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament.

Jesus did not look upon his mother as "co-redeemer" and in fact thought those who heard and obeyed the word of God were as equally blessed as Mary.

You cite Luke 11:27. That indeed explains that we are to imitate Mary through the keeping of the Word, and gives us an example of veneration of Mary that you Protestants fail to follow. It does not suggest that we become physical mothers of Incarnate God, which remains uniquely what Mary did, and which makes her uniquely the co-Redeemer.

[annalex]

1 Timothy 2:4-6 in no way contradicts veneration of Mary. It describes Christ, and I agree with the description. He is the only mediator between god and men and it is through His sacrifice Mary and the rest of us Christians are saved.

[Agrarian]

"The problem isn't in treating Mary with respect and I think you know that."

I'm not saying that Protestantism's lack of respect for her is a problem. It is your faith, your business. The point that I was making is that many Protestant beliefs and sensibilities arise out of reaction to Catholic excesses. In general Orthodoxy would view much Catholic popular piety regarding the Virgin to be excessive, and we modify or reject a number of points of their beliefs about her.

But regarding my point, think of Protestant Sunday school songs: there are ones about Zaccheus, Jonah, Daniel that I can think of right off hand. Where are the songs children are taught to sing about the Mother of the Lord? You may think that this is a silly example, but if one were to ask a group of Sunday school kids to list the 5 most important people in the Bible other than Christ, how many do you think would even think to list the Mother of the Lord?

You are being disingenuous if you really hope to claim that Protestantism in general has not gone out of its way to diminish the role and importance and respect for her, precisely out of reaction against Catholicism. I remember Billy Graham once speaking perceptively on this issue -- he didn't have an alternative, but he did volunteer that he perceived that the phenomenon is real.

I am an equal-opportunity critic in this regard. I can't speak about Catholicism, but some Orthodox cut off their nose to spite their face when it comes to things that "look Protestant." An example that I have used before is that the Orthodox tradition, both monastic and laity, has been to have extensive personal Scripture reading at the heart of one's prayer life. Numerous spiritual writers through the centuries have emphasized the need for this daily Scriptural reading (especially from the Gospels), even if one does nothing else. The Slavic Gospel and Epistles have personal reading markings that were (and still are) followed by monks and pious laymen -- by following them, one reads a Gospel every week (i.e. goes through all 4, 13 times a year), and the rest of the NT (except for Revelation) about 7 times a year. The Psalter is commonly read through once every 3 weeks or so.

On the American scene, in reaction to Sola Scriptura and Protestant fundamentalism, many Orthodox forget that this kind of immersion in the Scriptures is one of the things at the heart of the Orthodox spiritual life. They react to this and even denigrate the importance of the Scriptures. Some react to fundamentalist literal views of Scripture by buying into liberal secular Biblical "scholarship," placing themselves clearly outside the Orthodox tradition in this regard. I think you get the picture.

"The problem is that we won't cross a line into worship of her."

Neither will we. The difference between veneration and worship is not just a technicality to an Orthodox Christian. I remember having a evangelical friend who liked a lot of what he read about Orthodoxy, but who really had a problem with icons and said that there was no way he could ever get past that. One day, we happened to meet in a city on a Sunday and he came to the local Orthodox cathedral with me. This was a very traditional Russian parish, and the people would come in, venerate and greet the icons, and then before going to stand in their place, bow to the right and the left, facing the people already there. He saw how the people at this parish greeted each other with a 3-fold holy kiss, and how we kissed the hand of the priest (and sometimes of holy elderly laymen) out of respect. This is a venerating and greeting of the living icons of Christ that are present -- i.e. the faithful.

I was surprised when after the service, he told me that by seeing it in that place, he understood the role of icons among the Orthodox for the first time, and that he had no problem with it at all. He said that it was absolutely clear to him that we were not worshiping the saints or each other, let alone wood and paint. He said that he saw "the communion of the saints" lived out in a way he had never imagined.

Now, this is a evangelical friend who never became Orthodox even though he remains, nearly 20 years later, friendly to Orthodoxy. There is no triumphalist ending to this story. It is just the story of someone who "came and saw," and as a result understood that his preconceived notions about us "worshiping saints and icons" couldn't have been more wrong. I'm not sure that all would have that experience on visiting an Orthodox parish -- it would depend on the spirit of the parish and the openness of the individual -- but I suspect that most Protestants who actually were exposed to Orthodox worship in a living fashion would at the very least be more tempered and circumspect in their comments about what we do and do not believe.

"We all know who the Queen of Heaven is that Jeremiah preached against, and to even give her this title fills us with....something, I'm not sure what, dread maybe."

I certainly can understand this. I think that dread is a good word, since it fits the reactions.

"In contrast, try to find the name of David's mother in the bible-- good luck, she isn't even mentioned. Other than how David came to know Solomon's mother, she too gets no great mention. Poor Leah, she had to trick Jacob into loving her, as he loved Rachel more. The precedent is set for Mary to fulfill her great mission and to live as just another Jewish woman."

You are right that the role of women in traditional Semitic cultures was and is a very lowly one. Christianity did change that dramatically. Even to this day, Orthodox men living in areas where there are significant numbers of Muslims and are ridiculed by their Muslim neighbors because the Christian men are "ruled by their wives," and that they don't put their women in their place as they should.

" If it was not so, Jesus would have made sure to say so. We believe what Jesus said in the bible, and that is our only fault."

We of course believe that Jesus did say so, but we also believe that our traditions about the Theotokos are "inner" traditions, that are not a part of the preaching of the Word of God. They deepen our understanding of the great mystery of the Incarnation and of our salvation, but they are not something we put out front in the place of importance.

We of course believe what the Scriptures say as well. Believing them is not a fault at all, as far as I am concerned. We do understand them quite differently in many cases.

For instance, there is the time when the woman cries out that the woman who gave him birth and suckled him is blessed. Christ replies, "Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." In this, we don't see a put-down of the Theotokos at all. We rather see Christ telling the woman that what makes his mother blessed is that she heard the word of God, and kept it -- and beyond that, he was letting the woman and the crowd know that *this* was an aspect of his mother that they could and should imitate.

At the wedding at Cana, Christ says, in the KJV "what have I to do with thee?" This has been described by some Protestants as another example of Christ "putting Mary in her place." This is a mistranslated passage. The literal translation basically says, "what has this to do with thee and me?" Very different, isn't it?

Anyway, I harbor no delusions of convincing anyone of Orthodox teachings regarding the Theotokos. I wouldn't even want to try, since it is not where I would start in conveying the Orthodox faith. My motivation in addressing these things is that what tends to happen on threads like this is that straw-men or caricatures get set up, and of course those are pretty easy to knock about. I simply want to convey, as best I can, the flavor and spirit (as well as the details) of Orthodox teachings -- so you can at least be knocking the real thing about.