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

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

[Full Court]

No, theology exists independent of culture.

Absolutely correct.

[1000 silverlings]

:)

[annalex]

We are talking about understanding the scripture, and about that the inspired word is very clear:

30 [...] Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? 31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

(Acts 8)

20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation

(2 Peter 1)

We just saw how difficult it is to comprehend the concept of betrothal and marriage, and you see how much the cultural baggage of our time affects how we read the plainest scripture. This is the cultural barrier. We just saw how the Greek "eos" can be translated "till", until", "so long as", "even unto". "Charis" can be transalted with theological precision, "grace", or it can be the pedestrian-sounding "favor". This is the stuff da Vinci code is made, when modern whodonit writer imagination is superimposed on works of a distant century.

[annalex]

Matthew 1:25 is clear on one thing: Joseph had no marital relation with Mary prior to the birth of Jesus. The fact that they had no marital relation after is known from reason, history and another, indirect, scripture.

Also, understand that Mary is sinless not because she had no sex with Joseph. She did not have sex with Joseph not because she is sinless. The church considers marital sex holy and wholesome, and recommends much of it.

[D-fendr]

You're not being honest or respectful of others on this thread.

[Forest Keeper]

THE FOUR-FOLD SUPERIORITY OF THE KING JAMES VERSION

Thank you for the link, even though it trashes my NIV! :) However, it is definitely something to consider. Thanks again.

[1000 silverlings]

Number one, the Ethiopian was drawn by the Father to the Son, but as he had as yet not been baptised either with water or by the HS, he had no understanding. 2, We do not believe in private interpretations of scripture.

I see it sort of like the right to bear arms: a gun in every citizen's hand protects a strong republic the laws by which we can all agree on, a bible in every believer's hand protects a strong church, we can read it ourselves, we don't need the state or the government or whoever, telling us what it says.

3, I'm sorry but the rest of your post is unintelligible

[Agrarian]

This is really a topic, FK, that is worth reading and learning about.

I certainly would not, as an Orthodox Christian, agree with everything that Waite writes on this topic, but there is one point on which he is absolutely, 100% right, and that is the superiority of the Greek NT text underlying the KJV when compared to the Greek text that is used to underlie all other translations of the Scripture except for those that derive from the KJV. Of these latter, there is a good one (The Third Millenium Bible) and a bad one (the NKJV).

The second point on which the KJV is far superior to most modern translations is that it uses a principle of exact translation as much as possible, rather than the principle of so-called "dynamic equivalence." It simply follows the structure and wording of the Greek more closely. Many things that are considered to be archaic or "Elizabethan English" in the KJV are actually the result of the translators being shaped by the Greek text.

The third and most obvious superiority is the matchless language. Yes, it takes a little effort to look up a word occasionally, but if you read it aloud, there is nothing like it. It is a treasure of our language, and its loss has been tragic. It is too bad that, as Waite says, a major driving force in new translations and revisions is, quite simply, money. The KJV is in the public domain, and thus, no-one can make much money from publishing it.

And know, when you use the KJV, that you are reading direct translations of the liturgical texts of the Greek Orthodox Church. The reason why the number of manuscripts that support the Byzantine text-type is so voluminous compared to the number of texts supporting the modern critical editions is that, well, the people who actually knew and used Greek through the centuries chose to copy those manuscripts!

[HarleyD]

One shouldn't forget Luke:

Luk 2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Implying our Lord Jesus was Mary's "first" born and there were others. I believe I counted almost a dozen verses but it doesn't matter. People will choose to believe what they want.

[Forest Keeper]

Joseph was a distant relative and was very pious. He was elderly, and thus didn't need the usual (ahem) benefits of marriage in the way a young man might.

Well, he couldn't have been all the way over the hill, because IIRC, in the Protoevangelium it says that Joseph was accused by others of fathering the child, once Mary was discovered to have been pregnant.

Among other things, Mary cared for Joseph in his old age. I wouldn't exactly say that he was not going to get anything of benefit from the marriage. Given that he was a very devout man, it would hardly have been unpleasant for him to spend his final years with a woman who would care for him and pray all the time.

Given this premise, I'd say it sounds logical. But what gets me is: why get married? I can't believe it would send shock waves through the community if "young virgin niece" wants to go live with and take care of "doddering old uncle". That kind of thing must have happened all the time. Joseph even complained that he would be seen as a laughing stock at taking Mary as his wife. Then, the priest immediately used extortion to get Joseph to agree. I'm still chuckling about that one. :)

It is not really accurate to say that the Orthodox Church gets our traditions from the Protoevangelium. The Protoevangelion is merely the oldest known written account of a common pre-existing oral tradition.

Well yes, I didn't mean to imply exclusively. :) I was replying to Alex, and noticed that everything he pointed out was found in this document, so I assumed that he was referring to it.

Given Jewish laws of ritual cleanliness, once a temple virgin had reached a certain age (and BTW, Jewish tradition talks about temple work being done by young virgins, also) where she was going to be "unclean" on a monthly basis, she could no longer live in the Temple.

I remember the Protoevangelium noting this too. It just struck me as odd, (and I don't question the fact of the tradition), that since virginity was held up as such a prized state, that once young girls became "eligible", they were promptly kicked out of the safest place on earth to maintain that state! :) Go figure.

[Forest Keeper]

LOL. Poor Joseph.

I know, and I really thought he was being such a good sport through this whole thing. :) The poor guy couldn't seem to catch a break. :)

I'm sorry to hear about YOUR Joseph. I hope the kidnappers were decent enough to return him. I did some pretty stupid stuff as a teenager, but to steal from a Nativity Scene? I mean, whoever did it was just begging for a lightning bolt or something, right? :)

[Forest Keeper]

Don't let your spouse see what you said the only benefits of marriage are. :)

Roger that! :)

[Forest Keeper]

However, Jesus was conceived "supernaturally" and it is not unreasonable to say that He was born supernaturally. There was no "seed" uniting with Mary's ovum, but an ineffable God covering Himself with her flesh and fashioning a Child the way God the father fashioned Adam, except this time it was flesh and not clay.

I have never heard of this account before. I have always thought that the Spirit "produced" the necessary genetic material and caused it to unite with Mary's egg, (without any "union" in the human sense, of course). But you're saying that God just "zapped" a fertilized embryo into Mary's womb? So, Jesus did not have Mary's blood type or any of her DNA, that kind of thing? If true, that would definitely seem to throw new light onto the "birth-giver of God" vs. "Mother of God" debate.

[Forest Keeper]

As for Mount Tabor, I always wondered how did Moses and Elijah get there if they were in Hades until Christ rescued them.

Now THAT is an excellent question. The timing element does seem to be all wrong, doesn't it? I've got one I also can't answer. If John the Baptist was, by Christ's account, in essence, the finest human to ever live, and if JTB is actually Elijah, then what were either or both of them doing in Hades at all? BTW, what is the Orthodox take on whether John the Baptist was Elijah?

[jo kus]

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child til (unto) the day of her death." 2 Sam 6:23

Women don't die in childbirth? What was the child's name?

Regards

[jo kus]

Flesh and blood can tell us nothing about the bible Jo, only the Holy Spirit can

I think I have learned a lot from Concordances, Lexicons, Dictionaries, and background information of society of 2000 years ago - this has helped me in reading the Scriptures.

Regards

[jo kus]

The sticky point is "plain at what time?" No one wants an extravagant interpretation, but we want the reading that conforms with the intent of the writer, and he lived 2,000 years ago.

Good point. That is not an easy thing to do, considering we are 2000 years removed. Things that were "obvious" to those people hidden in the writings are not so obvious to us.

Regards

[jo kus]

In this verse, all it says is "your righteousness". It does not distinguish between the status of righteousness and actually being righteous. But even if it is the latter, that command does not put "becoming" on anyone's shoulders, by itself. It describes a condition that must occur, it does not specify the manner in which it is achieved. Reformers believe that all of the elect will, in fact, become actually righteous. It's a matter of timing.

No Catholic worth his salt (or Orthodox, I presume) would say that we can become righteous by our own actions without Christ's abiding Spirit within us. That is the problem with our arguments we have been having. When we say we must become righteous, you (Protestants) automatically assume that we mean ALONE! This is absolutely not the case! God comes into our beings and shares His divine life with us - eternal life enters into us, directing us towards the greater good. Because of Christ's abiding Spirit, we DO become righteous - because of Him - not because anything we do alone. What can we give to God that we have not already been given? Where Protestantism fails here is to claim that this regeneration, this "being born from above" is merely a status. As if God cannot CHANGE or TRANSFORM us!

I honestly do not know if there is any difference between extrinsic justification and imputed righteousness

The difference is manifold. Extrinsic justification means we are only given a new status - there is NO change within our being. We are like a puppet through which God acts upon, while we doing nothing of value. Intrinsic justification means we are indeed raised up to a new level, a supernatural level. We begin to BECOME righteous in God's eyes as a result of His work WITHIN us. Thus, WE can become holy, WE can become pure. Christ doesn't cover a mound of manure and "sneak" into heaven while God holds His nose!

As far as I know, man's cooperation has nothing to do with imputed righteousness.

Sure it does. We are empowered by God's graces to repent, to have faith, hope and love. We are given the ability to love even our enemies. WE! Not God disguised as me. I can love! Scriptures throughout tell of MAN doing "x". That is how Scriptures speak - we understand that MAN is responsible for his actions, but he IS empowered by God to do the good - thus, man cannot brag. Man can only cooperate - he cannot generate good deeds on his own.

Then, God actually makes us righteous after physical death, for the elect.

Ah. No, we become righteous even in this world! We become pleasing in God's eyes through faith. Even today, God abides in us - and we know this when we obey the commandments. Yes, we are given a status, but it is much more. Christ came to heal us and to give life to the fullest, even in this life. Not just a bus ticket to be redeemed 50 years from now! We share in the divine nature even today - but fully after our death.

Regards

[jo kus]

I was specifically asking about the actual beliefs of Honorius I. It appears that is the minimum he was held accountable for. Since an infallible Council declared that he had heretical beliefs, is this not a matter of faith and morals? How can a heretic be whole with the faith?

As I said, Honorius's case is one of insufficient witness against heretical opinions. Apparently, he was initially taken in by the wording of a monophysite statement. Words can be written to mean different things. For example, "Trinity" is in the lingo of Mormons, but it doesn't mean the same thing. Honorius did not preach that Jesus had one will. Apparently he did not attack the Monophysites enough to suit the future Coucils' desires. But who are we to judge at what point Honorius saw through the writings and recognized the heresy? In the end, he was not a monophysite.

Regards

[jo kus]

I wrote : Of course, Christ gave powers of forgiving sins and binding/loosening to the Apostles directly. If Christ expects His Church to exist for all time, can you give me a logical reason why He would not continue to provide this ministry to the Church for all time?

You responded: The Jews looked for a sign, and God provided that. (They were told all through the OT what to look for in the case of the Messiah.)

How does this answer my question above? forgive me, I don't understand your answer.

Regards