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

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

[Agrarian]

Re sharing in the divine nature...

Check out the epistles of St. Peter. They make for interesting reading.

[jo kus]

Now if I could only get you to understand how wrong you are about justification!

I may be incorrect, but it would only be because I am improperly teaching the Church's doctrines. As far as I can tell, I am writing what they teach. I humbly submit my will to Christ's instrument of the Truth on earth - so if I say something that you find in the Catechism that differs, please let me know so I can straighten out!

From your posts, I take it you believe that justification is a one time event? That justification = salvation? Yes, I would disagree with that, my reading of Scriptures, the Catechism, and my readings of the Church Fathers disagree with that concept.

Regards

[George W. Bush]

It might surprise you but I've recently been using e-Sword bible software. It contains several KJV versions, Geneva, Bishops as well as some of the silly modern ones. Contemporary English Version is included for light humor. Well, if blasphemous and careless translations is actually humorous. The e-Sword program allows you to lay them out in up to 4 parallel versions, quite handy. And I can have tons of study helps too. Gill, both Henry's, Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Nave's, etc. So it is quite complete.

I found they had several modern translations from the Receptus family. The one I found interesting and useful to use in conjunction with KJV with Strong's numbering was one called the Analytical-Literal. It's unique characteristic is that it is the first Bible version to be based on the second edition of Byzantine Majority Greek Text. It's strengths are that it includes one of the same textual features that I find so valuable in the KJV, namely, showing where words are added by translators for clarity. When used along with the tooltip-style Strong's numbers in e-Sword, it has actually helped me to gain a lot more understanding of many verses that are, admittedly problematic. It helps most in just parsing out the phrases and seeing the structure of the Greek text. It takes away so much of the tedium out of doing word studies.

At any rate, I guess even us KJV guys aren't all we're cracked up to be. I would maintain the King James as the most error-free of translations and the most reliable. But it is not insuperable and we can always benefit from sound bible study provided we use reliable references based on appropriate texts.

The Amazon link provides a short summary and examples from the ALT.

Home of the ALT publisher
Amazon: ALT

[Agrarian]

Go ahead and laugh, I'm standing by it! :-)

Taken as a whole, the KJV uses significantly fewer words, less complex words, and simpler sentence structure than does the NIV. This is particularly true in the Gospels and in the OT. The epistles are often difficult to make simple in any translation -- because the originals aren't simple. The KJV specifically had in view its public reading to a public that was not highly educated. I grew up around simple country people, many of whom hadn't been to high school, but who understood the KJV perfectly well for the most part. Pastors made sure to correct the obvious misunderstandings, and all was well.

In general, when the KJV is convoluted or obscure, it is because the original language is convoluted or obscure (I am here speaking to the Greek only -- I couldn't read Hebrew to save my life.) Many modern translations have a knack for making simple things falsely complex, and complex things falsely simple...

C.S. Lewis once wrote about the updating of the BCP. One of the changes made was that there was a prayer that asked that our rulers would apply the law "indifferently." This was updated to "impartial." Lewis asked a few villagers what they thought "indifferently" meant, and they replied that they supposed it meant that it meant that it didn't make any difference to the ruler one way or another how things turned out -- which is a pretty good definition of impartial. On the other hand, they had no idea what "impartial" meant.

I grew up on the KJV and know many, many verses and passages in it by heart as a result. When I was a senior in high school, our pastor recommended switching to the NIV for private study, and our pew Bibles were changed to the NIV a couple of years later. I used it through college and early grad school, changing back to the KJV during my Anglican years. I can now hardly get through a paragraph of it anymore... It is banal in the extreme, IMHO.

[kosta50]

I can now hardly get through a paragraph of it anymore... It is banal in the extreme, IMHO

KJV has many conceptual errors. One, for sure is the ending of the Lord's prayer with the "from evil" vice from "the evil one." Another that comes to mind is "be therefore perfect..." vice "become [future tense] perfect..."

I hate to think of all the misconceptions created through KJV in the minds of people who read the NT "cold" (i.e. not in the context of the Holy Tradition).

[kosta50]

What is the patristic teaching on unbaptized infants?

I believe that was answered by Agrarian recently and myself earlier. The Orthodox Church does not speculate. We believe that God is not limited in His options. Knowing that God is merciful and just, many Orthodox believe (privately) that the unbaptized babies are saved. However, to the bets of my knowledge, the official position of the Church is that we just don't know.

[kosta50]

You share in the divine nature?

That is at the core of "theosis" or "divinization" in Apostolic theology. Through the Spirit we can share in the divine nature (or essence). We can never assume, however, divine nature; we can only participate in it its uncreated energies.

[George W. Bush]

Knowing that God is merciful and just, many Orthodox believe (privately) that the unbaptized babies are saved. However, to the bets of my knowledge, the official position of the Church is that we just don't know.

Much like Baptists on this then. We also would like to believe it but can't support it from scripture. So we hope but don't promise. God is still sovereign and He has chosen to withhold certain information.

[kosta50]

Much like Baptists on this then. We also would like to believe it but can't support it from scripture. So we hope but don't promise. God is still sovereign and He has chosen to withhold certain information

And this is one instance where we are all on the same sheet of music. :)

Early 2nd century AD Roman tombstones indicate that Christians baptized their infat children by calling them believers. Bishop Eusebius (the first Church historian) specifically instructed Christians to baptize as soon as possible and not wait 8 days or 40 days as some Orthodox parishes do.

All this indicates that early Christians preferred to err on the side of the uncertainty and that there was a strongly entrenched belief that unbaptized children may not be saved since it is Baptism that brings one into the Church and unto Christ.

I am not sure what the current Orthodox teaching is on how soon one should baptize. Certainly, one cannot go wrong by baptizing into the Holy Trinity.

[Agrarian]

"KJV has many conceptual errors. One, for sure is the ending of the Lord's prayer with the "from evil" vice from "the evil one." Another that comes to mind is "be therefore perfect..." vice "become [future tense] perfect..." "

I wouldn't go so far as to say "many." There are a few real doozies, to be sure. But then, there are many more doozies in most modern translations.

All in all, the KJV is probably more free of conceptual bias on the whole than are most English translations of Scripture. This is because of the atmosphere in which it was written. At that time, England was a very believing place, so the modern biases of unbelieving skepticism weren't there -- and those are significant in many translations. Also, England was divided between Protestants who basically wanted to keep things the same but not have the Pope and those who wanted a Continental-style Reformation. Both sides were scrutinizing the KJV, and the result were translators who tried to be very literal and exact in their translations, in order to try to stay above such criticisms.

"I hate to think of all the misconceptions created through KJV in the minds of people who read the NT "cold" (i.e. not in the context of the Holy Tradition)."

I don't think that this is any different from any other translation. Every translation requires a context in which it is to be interpreted. And most of the time, there are things in any translation that a priest needs to correct or explain -- either by changing the words on his own while reading it out loud, or by clarifying it in a sermon.

Right now, I think that the best translation of the first three Gospels is the text embedded in the translations of St. Theophylact's commentaries. St. John will be published soon. It is essentially the KJV, but it is corrected with great precision, since St. Theophylact comments verse by verse on the meaning and wording -- there is little doubt as to meaning, since St. Theophylact is essentially compiling the consensus of Orthodox commentary.

I hope that it will be available in other forms soon. It is a first-class work.

Priests reading the Gospel in Slavonic also, incidentally, "correct" it off the cuff when needed to prevent gross misunderstandings. They simply change words while they are reading it if there is a danger that the Slavonic word has a very misleading meaning for a modern Russian speaker, etc...

[Forest Keeper]

So before you get on your self-righteous soap box about the "witness of Catholicism" and condemn one billion people, perhaps you should realize that we ALL have room to grow - and our source of grace is the same. Otherwise, keep your condescending comments private, please.

I will endeavor to follow your example, Joe. :)

[George W. Bush]

And this is one instance where we are all on the same sheet of music. :)

Well, there may be more. We Baptists insist on baptist by immersion. But we only dunk once. I have to admire the thoroughness of the Orthdox on this one. Take no chances, I always say.

You are no doubt aware that the KJV or the old Reformation bibles (Geneva, Bishops) or some of these modern ones like Analytical-Literal or English Majority Text version are all based upon the texts preserved by the Eastern church, known in the West as Received Text, Majority Text, Byzantize Text. Unfortunately, the other modernist western bibles are based on Textus Vaticanus and Textus Sinaiticus, versions with so many flaws and inconsistencies that their problems as authentic scripture cannot be discussed briefly.

So many of us do, in fact, have a bit in common with the Orthodox, via Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, the Reformation translators at Geneva and the King James translators.

Perhaps someday we Baptists can persuade you on baptizing only believers but that is another discussion. ; )

[George W. Bush]

"KJV has many conceptual errors. One, for sure is the ending of the Lord's prayer with the "from evil" vice from "the evil one." Another that comes to mind is "be therefore perfect..." vice "become [future tense] perfect..." "

In the English Majority Text Version:

Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

Analytical-Literal Version:

Mat 6:13 'And do not lead us into temptation, _but_ deliver us from evil [or, from the evil [one]]. Because Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory into the ages [fig., forever]! So be it [Gr. amen]!'


Mat 5:47 "And if you* greet [fig., are friendly towards] your* friends only, what more do you* do [than others]? Even the tax collectors do so, do they not?
Mat 5:48 "Therefore, _you*_ will be perfect, just as your* Father, the [One] in the heavens, is perfect.

King James Version:

Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Although ALT actually does give your desired literal rendering here, the average reader of KJV will quickly surmise the writer was encouraging imperfect Christians to become perfect as God is perfect. After all, if they were already perfect via their salvation, they would need no exhortation to become perfect. I think the language of the KJV actually suggests this meaning better than the modern versions.

I think there is something of reading at cross-purposes here from the Orthodox ideals to those found in Western Protestant or Baptist or evangelical churches. The difference might be surmised by a bit of writing from Gill, the writer of an old but very thorough commentary:

Mat 5:48 - Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father,.... This perfection is to be restrained to the subject Christ is upon, love to men, and not to be referred to any, or every other thing; wherefore, in Luk_6:36 it is, "be ye merciful, as your Father also is merciful"; and regards not a perfection of degree in that, but objects and quality: that is to say, not that men may, or can, or ought to be as perfect in love, as to the degree of it, as God is; that is impossible: the "as" here, is not a note of equality, but of likeness: such, who profess God to be their Father, ought to imitate him, particularly in their love to men, which ought to be extended to the same objects, as the divine goodness is; that, as he shows regard in a providential way to all men, good and bad, just and unjust, and his tender mercies are over all his works; so ought they to love all men with a natural affection, and hate no man, no, not their enemies: for he that loves only his friends, and not his enemies, loves imperfectly; ...

Gill goes on a bit more as he tends to do to avoid ambiguity.

I sense that your emphasis on becoming perfect might tend somewhat closer to what some in the Wesleyan churches refer to as perfectionism, a gradual spiritual perfection God can grant to supplicants over time. At least, that seems consistent with my understanding of the Orthodox.

[kosta50]

We Baptists insist on baptist by immersion. But we only dunk once. I have to admire the thoroughness of the Orthodox on this one

Thanks. The triple submersion goes back almost 2,000 years. Again, the Didache (c 70 - c 100 AD) specifically talks about this ritual of the primitive Church:

"But concerning baptism, thus shall you baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. But if you don't have living water, then baptize in other water; and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

The Orthodox Church still performs baptism in this way

So many of us do, in fact, have a bit in common with the Orthodox, via Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, the Reformation translators at Geneva and the King James translators

That is wonderful to know. Thank you. :)

[kosta50]

I believe you have us confused. I made the comments regarding the "evil [one]" and "be[coming] therefore perfect" in responding to Agrarian.

Nevertheless, I thank both of you (Agrarian's post 6910), for elaborating and demonstrating the value of various English-language translations. Much obliged.

[George W. Bush]

But if you have neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Eeek! I was doing fine up to this. ; )

And the solidarity of the West's Reformation with the ancient texts of the East is a rather sweet thing, a wonderful story of sciptural preservation and tranmission. While you in the East preserved the text so faithfully for all, and we in the West translated your text and gave it to the common people to throw off the hideous Roman yoke, Rome was floundering around with Jerome and some dead language. Rome's interest in her own Vaticanus and Sinaiticus was roused only by these dubioius modern versions in the West in the last century.

[kosta50]

Eeek! I was doing fine up to this

Well, that's how the Church did it when baptismal pools were not available.

[George W. Bush]

Nevertheless, I thank both of you (Agrarian's post 6910), for elaborating and demonstrating the value of various English-language translations. Much obliged.

And it was, of course, the KJV that was carried and translated into so many other languages during the great missionary outreach of the West around the world. In that way, the received text was transmitted to many heathen nations. Again, it is a complex and interesting story. Just when Rome thought she had the East penned up, the scripture of the East went on a journey all over the world, bringing the light of scripture where before there was none.

The East did remarkably well in preserving their ancient trust of preserving scripture accurately. It's remarkable how little variation can be found in the thousands of ancient versions of it from all over the Roman empire.

The Alexandrian texts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, are very few in number, come from a hotbed of ancient heresy (Egypt), and bear many marks of alterations and poor scholarship. Even these modern bibles which use them are informed by the Majority Text in problematic passages.

Without the East's solid preservation of scripture, we really would not have a Bible we could trust. Rome proved itself incapable of preserving much more than thrones and tiaras.

Oh, dear. And I've been trying so hard to be more ecumenical. It's tough being a Baptist.

[kosta50]

Oh, dear. And I've been trying so hard to be more ecumenical. It's tough being a Baptist

You have my sympathies, but it's not easy being Orthodox either. :)

[George W. Bush]

If you post a thread on the Orthodox's take on this new pope, flag me. I'd be interested. Maybe it's just me but I find this new one far more acceptable (as popes go) than that last one who seemed radical to me and ineffective in administering his responsibilities, especially with the American sex scandals. I'd enjoy reading how the Orthodox read Benedict so far.