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

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

[annalex]

All living things have a soul. The difference is that only we were created in God's image and likeness, as rational and capable of making free and virtuous choices, as opposed to choices by necessity

This is another reason, beside the ignorance of the gospel, that mystics like St. Francis drive the Calvinists crazy. They think we have an animal soul, and the animal world around us reminds them of the fallacy of their pathetic theology.

[annalex]

Mary was blessed for bearing the Lord.

But that was over.

Where did Christ withraw the blessing? "Yea" confirms the veneration of Mary; "rather" extends it to the communion of Saints who keep the Word.

[monkfan]

Christ's redemption cannot be bartered.

Let's do something different. Let's restrict ourselves to arguing points that have actually been made. Like the point you made in post #6336; "faith without works is not faith", a point with which I concurrered.

For the sake of clarity, I would add that the afformentioned statement relies on an unspoken premise that there are two kinds of faith being discussed: a dead one and a saving one. The latter produces good works. Lack of good works can be taken as an indicator that a person's faith is dead. Hence, faith without works is dead. Put differently, faith alone is dead.

You said, "Good works are the result of faith, not something we do to earn it [sic]." I presume that by "it", you actually meant "salvation". If so, I agree with that as well. However, that is not the same as faith alone. A faith that produces no works is faith alone. Now, I suspect that your intention here is to agrue that it is the faith (and only the faith) that saves and that good works is just a byproduct. For the sake of the current argument, let's say that is true. All this does is create a distiction with no appreciable difference. Either way, when all is said and done, the saved will have done good works. In short, the saved have faith AND good works, not just faith alone.

[annalex]

King James had nothing to do with the translating of the King James Bible except authorizing it.

I know. And his need was to create an English translation that is as anti-clerical as possible, so he authorized to put all the accents accordingly. Priests became "elders", and everything to do with Mary, as a type of Christian Church had to be trivialized. Luke 1:28 is not the only mistranslation. John 2:4 is another. John 19:27 is another.

'favored' simply means blessed anyway

The intent is to trivialize the blessing. "Grace" is a theological term that has specific meaning of cleansing of sin. "Favor" does not have such connotation. Besides, you are right, "favored" is roughly synonymous with "blessed", but she is also called "blessed" directly in the same phrase, so King James' translation of "favored" is flat redundant.

NASB and the NIV

Yes, many translations follow King James Version. So, avoid them too, and read Douay-Rheims if you cannot read Greek or Latin.

The real issue is did Mary need a saviour

That is not the issue at dispute; of course she did, and Christ is her savior too. He saved her at the moment she was conceived. This is why it is called Immaculate Conception.

A Roman Catholic talking about a Protestant lying about the Gospel!

Protestantism began with a lie about the Gospel (Roman 3:28, to be precise, was intentionally mangled by Luther, because the only way he could "prove" his Sola Fide fantasy was to commit fraud).

what does Mary have to do with any Gospel

She has everything to do with it (Luke 11:28).

[annalex]

My understanding is that in antiquity a woman simply could not be single, -- she was not thought of as capable to take care of the household alone, and Mary could not remain in the temple.

Of course we interpret the Bible through the historical cultural artifacts, including the Protoevangelium and the rest of the tradition. All the Bible says is that she was betrothed and appeared surprised that she would become pregnant. The rest is connecting the dots. We do it historically, and the Protestants do it counter-historically to serve their theological fantasies.

[annalex]

Outside of tradition, I don't know why she couldn't have experienced birthing pains either.

It is one of those Tradition-only teachings to be sure, albeit grounded in reason.

Jesus felt pain, so why not Mary.

Jesus' pain was salvific. Likewise when we experience pain we apply it to our salvation in imitation of Christ. Mary, already saved, had nothing to apply in that sense.

***

1. Declaring the power of salvific suffering, the Apostle Paul says: "In my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church"(1).

These words seem to be found at the end of the long road that winds through the suffering which forms part of the history of man and which is illuminated by the Word of God. These words have as it were the value of a final discovery, which is accompanied by joy. For this reason Saint Paul writes: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake"(2). The joy comes from the discovery of the meaning of suffering, and this discovery, even if it is most personally shared in by Paul of Tarsus who wrote these words, is at the same time valid for others. The Apostle shares his own discovery and rejoices in it because of all those whom it can help—just as it helped him—to understand the salvific meaning of suffering.

[...]

7 [...] the reality of suffering prompts the question about the essence of evil: what is evil?

This questions seems, in a certain sense, inseparable from the theme of suffering. The Christian response to it is different, for example, from the one given by certain cultural and religious traditions which hold that existence is an evil from which one needs to be liberated. Christianity proclaims the essential good of existence and the good of that which exists, acknowledges the goodness of the Creator and proclaims the good of creatures. Man suffers on account of evil, which is a certain lack, limitation or distortion of good. We could say that man suffers because of a good in which he does not share, from which in a certain sense he is cut off, or of which he has deprived himself. He particularly suffers when he a ought"—in the normal order of things—to have a share in this good and does not have it.

Thus, in the Christian view, the reality of suffering is explained through evil, which always, in some way, refers to a good.

[...]

11. [...] The Book of Job is not the last word on this subject in Revelation. In a certain way it is a foretelling of the Passion of Christ. But already in itself it is sufficient argument why the answer to the question about the meaning of suffering is not to be unreservedly linked to the moral order, based on justice alone.

[...]

19. [...] And the Apostle Paul in the Letter to the Galatians will say: "He gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age"(56), and in the First Letter to the Corinthians: "You were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body "(57).

With these and similar words the witnesses of the New Covenant speak of the greatness of the Redemption, accomplished through the suffering of Christ. The Redeemer suffered in place of man and for man. Every man has his own share in the Redemption. Each one is also called to share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished.

[...]

24 [...] In the Paschal Mystery Christ began the union with man in the community of the Church. The mystery of the Church is expressed in this: that already in the act of Baptism, which brings about a configuration with Christ, and then through his Sacrifice—sacramentally through the Eucharist—the Church is continually being built up spiritually as the Body of Christ. In this Body, Christ wishes to be united with every individual, and in a special way he is united with those who suffer. The words quoted above from the Letter to the Colossians bear witness to the exceptional nature of this union. For, whoever suffers in union with Christ— just as the Apostle Paul bears his "tribulations" in union with Christ— not only receives from Christ that strength already referred to but also "completes" by his suffering "what is lacking in Christ's afflictions". This evangelical outlook especially highlights the truth concerning the creative character of suffering. [...]

25. The witnesses of the Cross and Resurrection of Christ have handed on to the Church and to mankind a specific Gospel of suffering. The Redeemer himself wrote this Gospel, above all by his own suffering accepted in love, so that man "should not perish but have eternal life"(80). This suffering, together with the living word of his teaching, became a rich source for all those who shared in Jesus' sufferings among the first generation of his disciples and confessors and among those who have come after them down the centuries.

It is especially consoling to note—and also accurate in accordance with the Gospel and history—that at the side of Christ, in the first and most exalted place, there is always his Mother through the exemplary testimony that she bears by her whole life to this particular Gospel of suffering. In her, the many and intense sufferings were amassed in such an interconnected way that they were not only a proof of her unshakeable faith but also a contribution to the redemption of all. In reality, from the time of her secret conversation with the angel, she began to see in her mission as a mother her "destiny" to share, in a singular and unrepeatable way, in the very mission of her Son. And she very soon received a confirmation of this in the events that accompanied the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, and in the solemn words of the aged Simeon, when he spoke of a sharp sword that would pierce her heart. Yet a further confirmation was in the anxieties and privations of the hurried flight into Egypt, caused by the cruel decision of Herod.

And again, after the events of her Son's hidden and public life, events which she must have shared with acute sensitivity, it was on Calvary that Mary's suffering, beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point of view but which was mysterious and supernaturally fruitful for the redemption of the world. Her ascent of Calvary and her standing at the foot of the Cross together with the Beloved Disciple were a special sort of sharing in the redeeming death of her Son. And the words which she heard from his lips were a kind of solemn handing-over of this Gospel of suffering so that it could be proclaimed to the whole community of believers.

As a witness to her Son's Passion by her presence, and as a sharer in it by her compassion, Mary offered a unique contribution to the Gospel of suffering, by embodying in anticipation the expression of Saint Paul which was quoted at the beginning. She truly has a special title to be able to claim that she "completes in her flesh"—as already in her heart—"what is lacking in Christ's afflictions ".

[...]

26. [...] the Divine Redeemer wishes to penetrate the soul of every sufferer through the heart of his holy Mother, the first and the most exalted of all the redeemed. As though by a continuation of that motherhood which by the power of the Holy Spirit had given him life, the dying Christ conferred upon the ever Virgin Mary a new kind of motherhood—spiritual and universal—towards all human beings, so that every individual, during the pilgrimage of faith, might remain, together with her, closely united to him unto the Cross, and so that every form of suffering, given fresh life by the power of this Cross, should become no longer the weakness of man but the power of God.

(SALVIFICI DOLORIS)

What are we to conclude regarding Mary's birthing pains? The Holy Father makes the distinction, it seems, between the suffering we experience and apply to the redemptive work of Christ for our own salvation, and the suffering of Christ and His Blessed Mother done on behalf of others. Our Lady did not suffer physical pain because her final justification had already occurred at her conception. She, uniquely, had nothing to complete in her redeemed flesh. Her profound sorrow is all mental as she is carrying the Gospel of her Son's suffering to us through her motherhood. Her birthing pain is happening at Bethlehem, but rather at Golgotha.

Our Lady of the Seven Sorrows
Adriaen Isenbrant

[annalex]

If it is proper to pray to a candidate Saint for intercession (and some candidates get turned down), then is it also proper to ask for intercession from any who have passed away, such as deceased relatives, etc.? If "Yes", then that would seem to be quite a roll of the dice, depending on where the deceased person actually is according to your beliefs. Do people feel "safe" in praying to John Paul II because everyone assumes he is already in heaven?

Yes, it is proper to ask for anyone's intercession. It is always divine will that acts on the prayer, and it is never automatic -- you cannot order God around, whether directly or through a saint, or even less so through a righteous departed who has not been canonized. In that sense, a prayer for healing is a "roll of the dice" if you will.

Saints are canonized primarily to provide examples to us. Our conversation with them is always a conversation with God, who alone answers our prayer, and often in a way we did not expect (see, for example, my previous post on suffering).

[annalex]

James say that the elders of the church should pray over one who is ill

And annoint them, requiring physical presence. It points to a distinct function, the members ofthe household could not do themselves. Justin Martyr's Apology, written in the 2nd century shows that priests and deacons had distinct roles as well.

The point about "house churches" is not that they were someone's house,-- they were at times, -- but that they functioned as a Church, to the point that St. Paul asks people to not eat there, but rather eat in theor own homes.

'priest' has a far different modern connotation then does elder or even presbyterian.

When you read priests annointing the sick or giving communion or teaching the gospel, that is exactly the connotation that is also modern. "Elder" has a connotation of old age. Where is any reference to age about the Priests in the New Testament? Would you translate "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the old men of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord"?

Reading 1 Peter as referring to all believers is nowhere in 1 Peter. In particular, "Royal priesthood" cannot be squared with this Protestant notion. If all believers are royal priestshood, who are their subjects?

[annalex]

Paul is clearly talking about the people who have been justified included in the list of those who have sinned

This is how St. Paul describes these "all" (Romans 3):

13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have dealt deceitfully. The venom of asps is under their lips. 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery in their ways:

I know how deeply the late Reformed hate the Mother of God, but still, does it look to you that St. Paul is referring to Christ's Mother in this way?

[1000 silverlings]

"Little ones" are children and "little ones" are Christians. They both subsist on milk until they can eat meat.

You have mis-read my posts on angels, but relax, things are going well.

[HarleyD]

This is how St. Paul describes these "all" (Romans 3):

This is WHO the all is:
Rom 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;

If you don't fit in one of those two category then you're OK. (Note: not to pick on our Greek friends but Paul used Greek and Gentile interchangably) We were/are ALL like this. It is only because of God's mercy that He has saved us out of this condition. Not that I'm criticizing you but if you don't see yourself in this list then I would suggest a closer examination.

I know how deeply the late Reformed hate the Mother of God

Yes, yes, I know. Vile, aren't we? That fact that we say Mary was just like the rest of us, a weak and fragil creature in need of God's grace and mercy as is documented in scripture is just another form of hate speech.

ALL WE like sheep have gone astray...

[1000 silverlings]

Thanks for the reply Ag. It was illuminating, especially in regards to the visitor and the icons. Now on the face of it, bowing to an icon or genuflecting at a statue of say, Peter, or Mary, would be to me, breaking the First Commandment. Your church however, seems to have your rite as a cultural or social activity, not a religious one. We too flock around and make much over our esteemed elders and I would say we do this as it feels good, lol, it's just a socializing .

You're right, we don't have any songs to Mary, but it never struck me as unusual. Later I thought "Mary had a little lamb" was surely about her and Jesus though.

Well if it helps, the orthodox among us look with suspicion on some other Protestant groups just as much as we do with Catholics.

[1000 silverlings]

if you agree that we are called to sainthood, why do you refuse to pray to saints? ?

A disciple is a saint, so should I then pray to Dr. Eckleburg, or HarleyD? Why not just pray to myself and be done with it? ,

[annalex]

There is a continuing flow of thought from verse 9 to 11-16, and no, 11-16 does not apply to Our Lady.

[annalex]

Wait till they die, and then try.

[1000 silverlings]

But what is disturbing is that the baby is dead because it was a child born out of promiscuity of adultery and God killed him to punish David! The God of Life, God Who is Love, kills an innocent child to punish his adulterous parents. Truly merciful

The baby was not conceived in a relationship blessed by God. This is one of the mysteries of marriage and is taught in the bible, from the first union of Adam and Eve, down through every couple that brings about the Plan of Salvation, whether it is Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Leah, to David, the first annointed King. God is a partner in the marriage and this marriage was not holy. Once David was married to Bath-Sheba, then God joined the union and brought Solomon, David's son, and the ancestor of Jesus.

[1000 silverlings]

Lol. They will wake up angry and yell at me, like another guy once did to a friend of Saul's.

[HarleyD]

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.

While I not sure I would agree with the view of your evangelical friend (I've been to Orthodox Churches) I believe you make some very valid points about us Protestants and Mary. I too feel that we often diminsh her role.

I will say there aren't very many scriptures that talks about Mary so creating a sermon on Mary is extremely difficult without getting into speculation. Our pastor did a sermon on Mary and it was based mostly upon conjecture. It most likely is far easier for the Orthodox and Catholics to talk about Mary because they refer to tradition.

There is far more information about the lives of Ruth or Esther (even Rahab) then about Mary. Protestants probably don't refer to her as much simply because we focus on Sola Scriptura and there isn't very much written about her in scripture.

[annalex]

They will wake up angry

You know them better than I do. So, don't pray to them. Pray to St. Francis.

[1000 silverlings]

Thank you, but it will never happen.