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

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

[Full Court]

He also posited that this 'center' party would have probably anathematized him if they could, as they tried to get him declared a heretic.

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.

10  Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

[Full Court]

It should be very clear that Christ left a Church, not a Bible.

Would that be the same "church" that burned people at the stake for believing in Christ and possessing or printing a Bible?

Or the "church" that massacred the Huguenots?

Doesn't this painting still hang in the "church"?

Revelation 6:9  ¶And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

10  And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

11  And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

[Agrarian]

FK, what the Reformed doctrine holds is that when Ananias told St. Paul to "be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord...." -- well, he really didn't mean it literally that way. :-)

[jo kus]

Would that be the same "church" that burned people at the stake for believing in Christ and possessing or printing a Bible?

Protestants burned numerous woman at the stake for being accused of witches. And who can blame the Church for defending the Word of God from people who actually changed the wording to suit their own deviant theology. Did you know Tyndale and Luther changed words in the Holy Writ for that purpose?

The sins of individual men do not make the Work of Christ in establishing His Church 2000 years ago null and void. Otherwise, who would have followed a religion that had one of its 12 betray the Master and the rest ran away during the Master's hour? Have no fear, Christ promised a stiff punishment for those who "lead His children to sin"...

The point remains - Did Jesus establish a Church or a Bible? Is the Rock sacred Scriptures or Peter and his successors?

Revelation 6:9 ¶And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held

Yes, these are the saintly martyrs of the Church killed by the Roman Empire and other secular authorities. You think the Hugenots were righteous people of God? Do some reading about them. I find it a bit silly to think that John was speaking about the Church - being that he was one of its Apostles...

Sure, it's easy to judge other people - you seem to be very good at it - but this has no effect on what Christ did 2000 years ago. Like it or not, Jesus established a Rock and built His Church upon it - and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. I would assume this even means against bad Catholics who come and go..

Regards

[jo kus]

I figured that since it wasn't salvational that it might be OK to mention.

Baptism is for the remission of sins - so says the Scripture. HOW IS IT NOT salvational?

I have let this go on several occasions, but this is important. Without sins being forgiven, how do Protestants of your ilk consider yourselves as being "saved"? And at what point DO you become saved??? "Lord, Lord" - that's it? "Be gone, I never knew you..." Frightful!

Regards

[kosta50]

It would be impossible to say that a bishop has been given "more" of anything, just different gifts

God gives us different talents. It favors community. Everyone can contribute something to the whole. No one has it all except God. Christianity is all about that.

[Forest Keeper]

Why does it matter? Sola scriptura, friend, makes you the pope and the church all in one!

If the truth of Sola Scriptura makes me a pope, then you should really listen to me more. :)

[Pope Forest I:] "I say that God picked His elect for certain from before the foundation of the world."

That would imply the pre-existance of souls, which is a Gnostic belief -- of which St. Paul has been suspect, at least in his earlier beliefs.

I just said what I meant, as plainly as I could. God's elect are ordained from the beginning. Dr. E. then kindly fully backed that up with scripture in her 6554 .

Why do you have so much antipathy toward Paul? Is it because he argues against so many of your personal beliefs?

Baptism is one Sacrament that is recognized by all Christian assemblies as an absolute necessity to be Christian.

You know very well that's not true. Many Christians do not define their Christianity by the deeds they do to earn it. These Christians hold that their Christianity is centered on their belief in Christ.

Anabaptism (which is what you did) was considered vehement heresy by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and especially by the Reformed movements. You need to read up on Anabaptists, who were eventually destroyed -- especially by the Lutherans.

I can live with that! :) I can understand the view of the Catholics and Orthodox, perhaps because of the Anabaptists' view, like mine, that there are no salvational effects in baptism. From what I know of the Anabaptists, they were pretty openly hostile to RC baptism after the Reformation, and all of their members had to be re-baptized. Perhaps this brought some wrath upon them. :) But I don't have any such hostility about it. Let's face it, I doubt a true Anabaptist of the time would have allowed what I allowed with my own children, given my beliefs at the time.

Baptism is for the remission of sins. What St. Mark is saying is that whoever is baptized and believes will be saved. Therefore it is not enough to just believe (sola fide is not enough). Those who do not believe, even if they are baptized, will not be saved.

Well, of course I do believe that sola fide is enough. If Baptism is for the remission of sins, and future sins have to be dealt with by a priest, then what did Christ do for us exactly? I "think" your view is that Baptism wipes out the problem of "original sin", and I would say that is taken care of, except for the remnant, at the point of belief.

In your view, what exactly happens at the point of belief? I mean, I would use verses like 2 Cor. 5:17 and apply that to the point of belief, and you appear to say that it would be describing Baptism. Surely, there are people who "go through the motions" in all churches, but are not truly believers. Surely there are people who take the sacraments regularly who are not truly believers. Is there any change that occurs in the new believer? Sometimes, it just seems like the sacraments get most of the emphasis, and belief itself sort of takes a back seat.

Those who believe but are not baptized will want to be baptized. That does not mean infants cannot be baptized. Christ did not say baptize only those who believe.

Christ does not say so explicitly, but neither does He say TO baptize infants. "Household" is an ambiguous term, and this verse (Acts 18:8) says that the whole household BELIEVED. Infants cannot believe. Nevertheless, it is a fair matter of debate. But I do agree with you that any true believer will want to be baptized if he has not already been baptized. I see it as an obedience, and a true believer wants to obey.

[Full Court]

And who can blame the Church for defending the Word of God from people who actually changed the wording to suit their own deviant theology.

How quaint....... you actually believe that the church that Jesus Christ founded and died for would actually murder people for having Bibles.

Obviously, whatever church you claim to be a part of is a false church.

[Full Court]

Yes, these are the saintly martyrs of the Church killed by the Roman Empire.

Like Tyndale? Murdered by command of Cardinal Wolsey

[Dr. Eckleburg]

any true believer will want to be baptized if he has not already been baptized. I see it as an obedience, and a true believer wants to obey.

Precisely. Well-said.

at the point of belief

The important thing about a "point of belief" is that it is simply a moment in our growing awareness of the grace God has bestowed upon us through faith in Jesus Christ. It's what the Apostles urged one another to remember and proclaim, to preach Christ crucified and our salvation by the finished work of Christ.

But we were always His sheep. God has loved us, personally and specifically, from before the foundation of the world. He just chooses to let us in on it at a time of His good pleasure. 8~)

[Forest Keeper]

Whether Judaism reflect the faith of the OT righteous or not is not ours to determine. Just by seeing how different Judaism is from Christianity, down to the core, is enough to understand that Christianity is not the faith the OT righteous would recognize as their own.

Thank you for the snapshot of today's Judaism. I would agree that a contemporary Jew would not share the same faith as a Christian, but I can't assume that their faith is the same as the OT righteous. Of course we have so many advantages over those in the OT in terms of knowledge, I'm not sure it's fair to compare them on the same scale. We know that today's Jews openly reject Christ, but I don't think we can know that about Moses, David, Elijah, etc.

One more interesting aspect is the Jewish concept of the Nature of God. One of these is that God is neither male nor female. As one rabbi said, God has no genitalia. Yet, liturgical Judaism uses the phrase "Avinu Malkeinu," ("our Father, our King.")

I would agree with the Jews here, in that "God" is neither male nor female. "He" is all of both. :) It certainly is reasonable to me that Jesus appeared as a man given the time period and His mission. God appears to have wanted us to refer to Him as "Him", so I have no problem with that, but I don't think His essence is purely "male".

[Forest Keeper]

Given the fact that the Church has no problem making a big deal over Mary, had it been a legitimate tradition that this was her geneology. Why wouldn't the Scriptures have simply said so, had this been the case?

That's a fair enough point.

Anyway, we can be sure about our account because we have Holy Tradition -- you can't, since it isn't in the Bible. :-)

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... :)

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "God is commanding/encouraging us to not choose to sin, which we can always do."

You are missing the point! First, you deny that man can do ANYTHING - then you expect man to choose NOT to sin??? How is this possible?

No, I doubt I have ever said anything like "man can't do anything". I let it slide in the last post, but if you are going to keep repeating it, then I have to correct you. I might very well have said something like "man can't do anything good on his own", but that is very different from what you are saying here.

Either God graces man, leading man to be able to choose God - and thus making sense of perseverance, OR God demands that man do something that man cannot do - and injustly condemns said man for not being able to fulfill something he could NEVER do unaided! You can't have it both ways - God does everything/man is responsible!!!

LOL! I don't need to have it both of these ways, because neither is true, and I have never said otherwise. I believe that God does grace His elect, and they WILL choose God, all of them. This is much stronger than God simply making a man able. This is also indicative of a much stronger "God", since this God goes out and positively "gets" His beloved children. This God does not peek at an answer sheet and simply go with the results.

As I have said before, God does not demand that the non-elect be Godly. He doesn't expect them to be, and neither do I. And, I do not choose to judge God's justice by man's standards, but if you feel that you must do so, then by all means....

Those WHO PERSEVERE in this belief will go to heaven. God expects man's response to continue throughout his life. If you REALLY believe in something, you make it part of your life, not "Lord, Lord" - and "I never knew you"... Those going to heaven are the ones who believe and put their belief into action. Not the ones who merely talk, talk, talk...

Yes, I couldn't agree more. I'm sure this goes back to our different views of what IS "belief" or "faith". If you'll remember, I throw in some side dishes. :)

The "sheep" are God's COMMUNITY, not individuals. When Christ is talking about His sheep, His flock, He is speaking about His Church, the community of faith.

Really? Well, then I was right, we do disagree on who the sheep are. :) If the sheep are not individuals, then what do you make of these passages? :

Matt. 18:12-14 : 12 "What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? 13 And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. 14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.

Luke 15: 3-7 : 3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

Yes, it's the same story, but based on these you still think that the sheep that the Father gave to Christ were not individuals? I have no idea why you would even make a distinction between all individuals who are of God's elect, and one group of "God's Church", which I can only assume is 99% Roman Catholic and Orthodox. Perhaps that is the reason.

One of the worse sins is religious pride. I see this sin quite clearly in the attitude that "God has saved me and I am going to heaven".

I think it is very telling that you see this simple statement as an actual sin. I would say that to not be able to say this is to lack faith and trust in God and His word. I guess it goes both ways.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "So Mary is the singular wife of God?"

Who ever said that?

You did when you said: "Who is going to have sex with another person's wife? Not a normal person." Who is the other person, if you don't mean God?

MAYBE they didn't have Viagra back then... Sex isn't one of those "things to do" when you are 70 years old, especially if the GIRL took a vow of virginity.

Yes, there certainly are plenty of extra-Biblical "MAYBES" in this whole scenario. Does the Tradition really specify that Joseph was 70? ... And please speak for yourself on "things to do" when we reach 70. :)

Does the Bible say that Joseph and Mary had sex?

Yes, it sure does, and I still don't see why this is the end of the world for you, especially since you appear now NOT to think of Mary as Mrs. God. :)

Don't you find Mary's reply to the angel strange?

No, not at all. Harley and I have both addressed this from slightly different angles, but I think we arrive in basically the same place. My argument is that we know for sure that Mary asked a simple and honest, straightforward question, because that is exactly the response she got. Jesus is a model for this in how He answered questions. Mary asks how can this be since "I AM a virgin" or "I have known not a man". Mary does not say since "I am PLEDGED to be a virgin (forever)". Mary was asking a logical question of mechanics given her (then) current state. Since the passage says that Mary was afraid, naturally so, it makes sense that she would revert back to basics. We all do under stress.

Now, at the time, Mary was still officially betrothed and not yet married. The wedding day was of an indeterminate length away. Another point in support of my contention that the angel meant and Mary understood that this pregnancy was about to happen SOON is that the angel tells Mary something else very important to this discussion. The angel tells Mary that her relative Elizabeth was already in her sixth month with John the Baptist. Now we know that JTB jumps in the womb at the presence of Jesus in Mary's womb. That leaves an absolute maximum window of three months for Mary to be pregnant after the visit from the angel. This was not some long-term prediction.

Why wouldn't it be like Hannah, if Mary was just an ordinary, betrothed woman about to enter into a sexual relationship?

I don't understand your comparison between Hannah and Mary. Hannah prayed hard for a baby, and God granted her request. Mary was not praying for a baby and was in an entirely different situation. Mary was about to conceive supernaturally, and be subject to public ridicule, the scorn and disgust of her betrothed, and perhaps even her own death by stoning. It seems only "just" of God to give her a heads up. :) She would have been in agony and torment otherwise, and for doing no wrong. These situations have nothing to do with each other.

[kosta50]

How quaint....... you actually believe that the church that Jesus Christ founded and died for would actually murder people for having Bibles. Obviously, whatever church you claim to be a part of is a false church

Obviously, you are fasley directing your replies to the one who didn't make them. I don't think I was even included in 6824, let alone authored it.

Calm your passions. This is just a matter of personal opinions.

[D-fendr]

Hi AG,

Thanks for your post and welcome to the thread...

[Forest Keeper]

I fail to see your distinction between "throwing out unwritten material" and "God's written word is the only authority". And obviously, WHO is to judge whether Scripture has been "offended"? YOU?

Well, I said that unwritten material MAY be fine, thus it is not thrown out automatically. And "No", I am not the judge of what offends, the Spirit is. I either correctly interpret what the Spirit shows me or I do not. As my sanctification continues, I get it right more often. You would consider this the same as my saying I make up everything for myself because you do not accept that the Spirit would ever give the likes of me the time of day on scriptural matters. I think God is bringing me along on His time schedule and I will understand what I will when He says so.

It is the APOSTLES who were given the power to bind and loosen, NOT the Bible!

This does appear to be quintessential Catholicism. Men have the power and authority, not God's written word.

Because you can see out of one eye, should you then get rid of the other?

No, you should use it to see what's written on the other page. :)

The Scriptures AND Apostolic Tradition were given to the Church as a deposit of faith, the Word of God for the Church. By ridding Christianity of part of this sense of God's Word, revelation is no longer clear.

I don't think I will ever be convinced that Tradition plus scripture can possible result in clarity if both are on equal footing. They are so different that one must dominate, one must be read in light of the other. You already indicated above which is the dominant authority. Men have the power. Sure, you can make the meanings match through interpretation, but you'll never be able to get the actual words to match.

Are you forgeting that people hardly even read the Bible until the 1500's, and these people were quite knowledgeable of the faith as a result of the teachers and practice of the faith.

If they were quite knowledgeable it was to the extent that they were taught in consistency with scripture. Are you forgetting that the history of the Catholic Church has been to discourage the reading of the Bible in favor of oral teachings? Again, men have the power, not God's word.

The very fact that we disagree on Scriptures should point out that Scriptures do not interpret themselves!

That is a disjointed argument. That's like me saying that because we disagree on your Tradition, it is wrong. The scriptures do interpret themselves. Some see it, some do not.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "How can Catholicism get one to 99%, but not 100%? It seems to me that with my understanding of your view of free will, that it would be impossible to get even near to 99%."

Not sure what you mean. ... But cannot we fool ourselves into thinking we are abiding in Christ? Or perhaps wishful thinking? Paul tells us to "beware lest you fall". We always realize that God's view of us may differ from our IDEA of who God views us.

This level of uncertainty is exactly what I'm talking about. It seems MUCH larger than 1%.

FK: "I thought your view was that God's plan was for everyone to be saved, and that free will is the only thing that stops that. Since you know that the rate of salvation is no where near 99%, how can you have that assurance?"

I am speaking of a person who abides in Christ, not the general public.

WHAT??? :)

[jo kus]

How quaint....... you actually believe that the church that Jesus Christ founded and died for would actually murder people for having Bibles.

Murder? Tyndale was tried and found guilty. Are you sure you know what murder is? And before you go judging everyone else, perhaps you should consider that more women in England were burned as witches by Protestants during 150 years than the entire Spanish Inquisition...

Regards

[jo kus]

No, I doubt I have ever said anything like "man can't do anything". I let it slide in the last post, but if you are going to keep repeating it, then I have to correct you. I might very well have said something like "man can't do anything good on his own", but that is very different from what you are saying here.

Well, according to your posts, you say that man does nothing to cooperate towards his salvation. Thus, he cannot do anything good, according to you, even as a regenerated Christian abiding in Christ. If I misunderstand your point, it is because you have failed to explain exactly how man is responsible and will be held accountable for something he has no power to do - to do good. You have consistently said that man does not cooperate. And now, you say that man can NOT choose sin? Well, which is it?

I believe that God does grace His elect, and they WILL choose God, all of them. This is much stronger than God simply making a man able. This is also indicative of a much stronger "God", since this God goes out and positively "gets" His beloved children. This God does not peek at an answer sheet and simply go with the results.

And who wrote the "answer sheet"?

As I have said before, God does not demand that the non-elect be Godly. He doesn't expect them to be, and neither do I. And, I do not choose to judge God's justice by man's standards, but if you feel that you must do so, then by all means....

I sense a condescending tone in your reply... Hmm. The problem is that you don't know who the elect are. Thus, we persevere until the end. If God told you that you are of the elect and cannot fail, what is the point of Him telling the EVERYONE to persevere? And who is Jesus telling to persevere? God or man?

If the sheep are not individuals, then what do you make of these passages?

Are any of the sheep named "Forest"? It is a parable expressing how willing God is to bring His community to Him.

I have no idea why you would even make a distinction between all individuals who are of God's elect, and one group of "God's Church", which I can only assume is 99% Roman Catholic and Orthodox. Perhaps that is the reason.

Because the Church is not a disembodied, invisible group of individuals spread throughout the world. It is a visible entity, one that people can go to and point out and say "Look, the Body of Christ". If you are of the Church, it is to the degree that you share the Catholic faith.

I said : One of the worse sins is religious pride. I see this sin quite clearly in the attitude that "God has saved me and I am going to heaven".

You responded :I think it is very telling that you see this simple statement as an actual sin. I would say that to not be able to say this is to lack faith and trust in God and His word. I guess it goes both ways

Jesus saw the same attitude in the Pharisees...What was His attitude towards them? I am sorry, but Christ didn't think too highly of presumptuous behavior.

Regards