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

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

[HarleyD]

Agrarian-Christ does not say that John the Baptist was literally Elijah the Tishbite returned to earth.

FK-This is a tough one for me, as I do agree with you about the problem of reincarnation.

This is a difficult one for me as well. What's interesting in Matthew 17 is that Elijah and Moses both appear to Christ in the transfiguration (Matthew 17:3); yet immediately after the event (Matthew 17:11,12) Christ calls John "Elijah". How could this be if Peter, John and James just saw Elijah? Clearly it could not be reincarnation since they just saw Elijah physically standing with Christ (Peter wanted to construct tents for them). They knew what John the Baptist looked like and this dude was not it. One can only surmise that immedicately following this event that our Lord Jesus was telling His disciples John would be similar in power to Elijah.

What puzzles me is how Peter knew these two people were Moses and Elijah.

[Forest Keeper]

The Orthodox Church titles him "Joseph the Betrothed." My understanding is that the intention was to remain in the betrothed state, which, as I understand, included "legal" co-habitation, but not licit "knowing." My understanding is that they never intended to marry, since it is not really a legal marriage unless there is "knowing."

In my earlier digging around on both Catholic and Protestant sites, one thing I thought was in common was that in betrothal, the "bride" and "groom" did not live together during the betrothal. The tell tale sign that the marriage had actually taken place was that the woman came to live with the man. Here is an excerpt from the writings of Pope John Paul II EWTN Library :

"In presenting Mary as a "virgin", the Gospel of Luke adds that she was "betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David" 1:27). These two pieces of information at first sight seem contradictory.

It should be noted that the Greek word used in this passage does not indicate the situation of a woman who has contracted marriage and therefore lives in the marital state, but that of betrothal. Unlike what occurs in modem cultures, however, the ancient Jewish custom of betrothal provided for a contract and normally had definitive value: it actually introduced the betrothed to the marital state, even if the marriage was brought to full completion only when the young man took the girl to his home."

My version on this says:

Matt. 1:20 : But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

Is the phrase you use in the post "take her to wife" intentional, to address this issue?

[kosta50]

Infants go to heaven

That's not how the early Church saw it. Bishop Eusebius urged his parishoners to baptize as soon as posisble and not even wait for day 8 as the Jews did for circumcision.

The reason why Limbo infantum even became a hypothesis of the Church is because the Church was not certain that unbaptized infants go to heaven. The current Catholic Catechism takes the patristic view shared with the Orthodox Church's unbroken tradition, that we do not know, but that we trust God's mercy.

They are not accountable

No they are not, but unbaptized infants are not Christians.

What happens to unbpatized infants is beyond our knowledge or comprehension.

[kosta50]

I knew they were considered unclean, as well as in the case of right after childbirth. I just didn't know that it was so strict that a woman can't even live in a temple if she EVER is that way

I am jumping in on this as it caught my eye. The Orthodox Church in 17th century Russia used to ex-communicate for years child-bearing age women who would be seen in church on four consecutive Sundays, one of which would have to be during their menstrual cycle.

The Orthodox Church to this day stipulates that a woman is not to come to church untl 40 days after the childbirth, which is the reason why so many Orthodox baptize their children at that time.

[Forest Keeper]

Where did you get the idea that Mary was Joseph's niece? Surely whatever relation they had, if any, did not preclude marriage, and by the same token would have precluded cohabitation without marriage.

It was suggested as a possibility by another poster, but I cannot remember who it was. I certainly do not believe that it is correct.

[Agrarian]

All of the raw materials for making chromosomes, including making a Y chromosome, are in any woman's body. Things just need a little rearranging -- which shouldn't be that hard for God. That said, we really do not and will not know any biological details.

[Forest Keeper]

Where FK and I disagree, however, is that a bishop would read a given writing and would recognize its orthodoxy based upon what they were taught. It wasn't the other way around. There was no "marking" on the scroll that identified something as Scripture! It was only declared Scripture when properly recognized. The Canon didn't form itself! The Apostolic Teaching came first to the Christians. When Paul commissioned Titus and Timothy, did he give them a bible or did he give them a body of teachings that Paul preached to them? This Body was the paradigm for the future successors, the Bishops, to use for determining what WAS Scripture. According to FK, this is not how the formation of the Bible came to be. Basically, the Church was sitting down passively as God pointed a magic finger to each scroll, and a bishop would then put it into the pile labeled "future Bible". The other pile would be labeled "leave out of the future Bible". Thus, the Church, to FK, had no role to play whatsoever, but merely passive.

This is a mischaracterization of the perspective of my arguments. My main disagreement with you is that I believe that God gets all the ultimate credit and glory for the creation and assembling of the Bible. I am emphasizing that the glory really belongs to God. You have resisted this, insisting (IMO) on giving the maximum credit and glory to the men of the Church INSTEAD of to God.

Your arguments have carried the distinct implication that we Protestants OWE "your" men for the Bible itself, and that THEREFORE whatever "your" men say about it MUST be correct. The general attitude I am perceiving from you over the course of the whole conversation is that Protestants are ungrateful for questioning Catholicism since it was "your" men who invented the Bible. This is the line I'm objecting to.

[Agrarian]

I had time to pull St. Theophylact off the shelf. In the St. Matthew passage he follows St. John Chrysostom closely. I don't have other commentaries from other Fathers, but St. Theophylact became a standard commentary just as St. John of Damascus became a standard summary of Orthodox dogma, and for the same reasons -- both generally summarize the consensus patrum of what went before them:

"And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, who was to come"

>> If you are willing, He says, to accept it, that is, if you judge the matter with a good disposition of mind, and not spitefully, he is the one whom the prophet Malachi called Elijah who was to come. For both the Forerunner and Elijah have the same ministry. The one was the Forerunner of the first coming, while Elijah will be the forerunner of the second coming. Then, showing that it is an enigma that John is Elijah, and requires wisdom to understand it, He says:

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear"

(Then, on Matthew 17):

"And his disciples asked Him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?"

>>The scribes were deceiving the people, saying that Jesus was not the Christ, for if He were, Elijah would first have come. But they did not know that there are two comings of Christ, the Forerunner of the first being John, and of the second Elijah. Christ then explains this to the disciples. Listen:

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they desired. Likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer at their hands. Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of John the Baptist"

>>By saying, 'Elijah truly shall come,' Christ shows that he has not yet come, but that he will appear as the forerunner of the second coming; and when he appears, he will restore all teachable Jews to faith in Christ, as if restoring them to their paternal inheritance which they had lost. But when Christ says, 'Elijah is come already,' He is speaking of John the Forerunner; for the Jews 'did unto him whatsoever they desired' when they slew him; they slew him when they permitted Herod to slay John, though they could have prevented it. The the disciples became keener in perception and understood that He was calling John Elijah, as John was the Forerunner of the first coming, just as Elijah would be the forerunner of the second coming.

(From St. Mark 9)

"And they asked Him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elijah must first come? And he answered and told them, Elijah cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how is it written of the Son of Man, that He must suffer many things, and be set at nought? But I say unto you, that Elijah is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they pleased, as it is written of him."

>>It was commonly said among the Jews that Elijah would return before the Messiah came. But the Pharisees were not interpreting correctly the prophecies concerning Elijah, but of their own will and evil disposition they hid the truth. For there are two comings of the Messiah: this one, which had already taken place, and the one to come. John the Baptist was the Forerunner of the first coming; Elijah will be the forerunner of the second coming.

Christ call John 'Elijah', because, like Elijah, John was an admonisher, a zealot, and a desert-dweller. The Lord therefore refutes the opinion of the Pharisees who held that Elijah would be the forerunner of the first coming of the Messiah. How does He refute? 'Elijah cometh first, and restoreth all things: and how is it written of the Son of Man, that He must suffer many things?'

What Christ is saying is this: when Elijah the Tishbite comes, he will make peace with the unbelieving Jew, and will bring them to faith. thus he will be the forerunner of the second coming. For if the Tishbite, who shall restore all things, were the forerunner of the first coming, how then is it written that the Son of Man shall suffer this and that?

Logically it comes to this: if we believe the Pharisees' teaching that Elijah will be the forerunner of the first coming, then the Scriptures are false which say that Christ will suffer. But if these Scriptures are true, then the Pharisees are wrong in teaching that Elijah will be the forerunner of the first coming. For Elijah shall restore all things, and then there will be no Jew who remains an unbeliever, but as many as hear Elijah's preaching will believe. The Lord confounds the opinion of the Pharisees when he says that Elijah, meaning John, has already come, and they did unto him whatsoever they pleased. For they did not believe in him, and in the end his head was cut off, as the trophy of some game.

[Agrarian]

All very interesting. I find it interesting that you found so many translations that give a more literal translation of the "ti emoi kai soi" passage in St. John.

The KJV certainly doesn't stand or fall by the Johannine Comma, or by the "kick against the pricks" line from Acts, which I also think is not Majority Byzantine text, as I recall. As you say, these are motes in the figurative eye of the KJV, compared with the beams in the eyes of the Alexandrian-based critical texts that are au courant.

"While the Orthodox are not Protestants, they do not practice popery and therefore textual authority is higher and the treatment of scripture is a far more serious responsibility."

Your terminology isn't politically correct, but your basic point is dead-on. Because we Orthodox believe that no man (and even no Council) has the authority to change the faith, the written word is *very* important in the conveying of the apostolic succession, which is, first and foremost, a succession of the passing on of *right doctrine* from bishop to bishop, and only secondarily a succession of sacramental laying on of hands of bishops.

When the Patriarchate of Constantinople decided to standardize the Greek liturgical texts of the NT at the turn of the 19th/20th c., there was, according to a Greek Biblical scholar, rioting in the streets of Athens, and people died. The exact wording of the Scriptures *did* matter to a lot of Orthodox Christians! Same thing with the Nikonian reforms of the liturgical/Biblical texts in Russia in the 17th c.

Most of this aspect of Orthodoxy is not readily apparent to the outside observer, since much of it has always taken place within the ranks of the clergy and within monasteries (the Muslims took over before the printing press really came around.) Also, our spiritual tradition is that Holy Tradition, of which Scripture is the most important and most central part, is first and foremost something spiritual -- not printed words. It is the living presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

When St. Zosimas met St. Mary of Egypt in the desert, she had been there essentially all of her adult life, and had never learned to read. Yet she quoted Scriptures verbatim to him as they spoke. The Holy Spirit had not left her without the Word, even though she didn't have a Bible, and couldn't have read it had she been given one...

[Forest Keeper]

The Orthodox Church does not consider +John the Baptist to be Elijah. It is my understanding that the Orthodox Church holds that Elijah will return in order to die.

Kosta, I'm sorry I neglected to ping you to my response to Agrarian's answer. If you are interested, please see 6937 and its responses for more comments on this topic.

[George W. Bush]

The current Catholic Catechism takes the patristic view shared with the Orthodox Church's unbroken tradition, that we do not know, but that we trust God's mercy.

Sound Baptists and Protestants who know their Calvin also hold this. On the Calvinism threads, this came up often. I had never understood why even the postulation of a Limbo was necessary but it is interesting the the RC and Orthodox hold the same basic assumption.

[George W. Bush]

I find it interesting that you found so many translations that give a more literal translation of the "ti emoi kai soi" passage in St. John.

I was surprised myself. But that is the reason we consult references and varying translations, a tradition that goes back to Jerome or earlier. I also found it interesting how the commentaries which supported the KJV reading reached their conclusions.

I like a variety of commentaries and perspectives. It's helps a person to see how various persons in varying circumstances in different eras read scripture, their approach to it, the focus of their exposition. While we are all creatures of our own times and circumstance, we should try to avoid using scripture in a bigoted or tendentious way. We should strive for neutrality, to let the text speak to us and not to use the text to impose our opinions on others for temporary goals, however worthy we consider them to be.

You mentioned the Douay's readings earlier. I was curious if you're familiar with the Jesuit Bible of 1582, generally considered the primary ancestor of the Douay. I've wondered about its readings before but I'm not sure if copies of it are available online. At least, I've never found it. Google does reveal some tidbits though, such as this page which compares KJV, Jesuit 1582, and American Revised 1901. There appears to be a revival of interest in the Jesuit version in the last ten years whereas it was previously virtually unknown to laymen. Apparently, it is KJVer's who are reviving the interest in it. ; ) I find that interesting. Here is an interesting sample from that page:

XIII.  COLOSSIANS 1:14

(1) KING JAMES BIBLE. "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins."

(2) JESUIT VERSION. "In whom we have redemption the remission of sins."

(3) AMERICAN REVISED. "In whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins."

The phrase "through His blood" is not found in either the Jesuit or American Revised Versions; its omission can be traced to Origen (200 A.D.), who expressly denies that either the body or soul of our Lord was offered as the price of our redemption. Eusebius was a devoted follower of Origen; and Eusebius edited the Vatican Manuscript. The omission is in that MS and hence in the American Revised Version. Moreover, Jerome was a devoted follower of both Origen and Eusebius. The phrase "through His blood" is not in the Vulgate and hence not in the Jesuit Bible.

Here is the fatal parallel between the Jesuit Version and the American Revised Version. This omission of the atonement through blood is in full accord with modern liberalism, and strikes at the very heart of the gospel.
 

Your terminology isn't politically correct, but your basic point is dead-on.

You are kind because I was probably unintentionally offensive (not that Baptists worry over offending popes, not even this current one who is, as I've said, far more acceptable than his predecessors). But when the Protestants and others in the West turned against Rome, this term of popery used by Protestants and Baptists was not an objection to an orderly transfer of authority through a succession of leaders. It was to radical changes of doctrine and the use of superstitious tricks and mummery to fleece the flock of funds or to compel their obedience. It was Rome, not the Orthodox, who instituted practices like the sale of indulgences or the sale of high clerical office. And these practices were rooted directly in the authority of various popes. Hence, the term popery. The Orthodox appear to be far more conservative, to have institutional safeguards against unscrupulous or ignorant individuals. It's a pity that attempts in the West to reform Rome's abuses and arrogance failed for centuries prior to the Reformation. Although Rome eventually curbed some of the worst abuses, the institutional flaws remain and cause mischief up through the present era.

[George W. Bush]

When the Patriarchate of Constantinople decided to standardize the Greek liturgical texts of the NT at the turn of the 19th/20th c., there was, according to a Greek Biblical scholar, rioting in the streets of Athens, and people died. The exact wording of the Scriptures *did* matter to a lot of Orthodox Christians! Same thing with the Nikonian reforms of the liturgical/Biblical texts in Russia in the 17th c.

And I thought us KJVers were the only troublemaking textual 'nitpickers' in Christendom! Looks like you Orthodox beat us to the punch. But it tells us something of the longstanding instinct among the Orthodox for textual preservation. Your laity has to care pretty deeply about their text to riot over it.

[HarleyD]

Your explanation seems odd with its focus on the dispensation of the Jews. I was trying to research Chrysostom for this reference and have not been able to track it down. I noticed what John Calvin (who frequently quotes Chrysostom and seems to be a great fan of his) had to say:

Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first? The gross mistakes which they committed as to the person of Elijah have been pointed out on two or three occasions. Perhaps, too, they cunningly and wickedly endeavored to lessen the authority of Christ by bringing forward Elijah; for as it had been promised that Elijah would come as the forerunner of Messiah, to prepare the way before him, (Malachi 3:1; 4:5,) it was easy to excite a prejudice against Christ, by saying that he came unaccompanied by Elijah. By a trick closely resembling this, the devil enchants the Papists of the present day not to expect the day of judgment till Elijah and Enoch have appeared. It may not usually be conjectured that this expedient was purposely resorted to by the scribes, in order to represent Christ as unworthy of confidence, because he wanted the legitimate badge of the Messiah.

11. Elijah indeed will come first. We have stated elsewhere the origin of that error which prevailed among the Jews. As John the Baptist was to resemble Elijah by restoring the fallen condition of the Church, the prophet Malachi (4:5,6)had even given to him the name of Elijah; and this had been rashly interpreted by the scribes, as if Elijah the Tishbite (1 Kings 17:1) were to return a second time to the world. Christ now declares that every thing which Malachi uttered was true, but that his prediction had been misunderstood and distorted from its true meaning. “The promise,” says he, “that Eliah would come was true, and has been already fulfilled; but the scribes have already rejected Elijah, whose name they idly and falsely plead in opposing me.”

And will restore all things. This does not mean that John the Baptist restored them perfectly, but that he conveyed and handed them over to Christ, who would complete the work which he had begun. Now as the scribes had shamefully rejected John, Christ reminds his disciples that the impostures of such men ought not to give them uneasiness, and that it ought not to be reckoned strange, if, after having rejected the servant, they should, with equal disdain, reject his Master. And that no one might be distressed by a proceeding so strange, our Lord mentions that the Scripture contained predictions of both events, that the Redeemer of the world, and Elijah his forerunner, would be rejected by false and wicked teachers.

This is not to say that Theophylact is wrong but only that Theophylact's and Calvin's interpretations seem to be at odds. There is no indication that Calvin is in anyway referring to Chrysostom's writings. But Calvin often cites Chrysostom and is familiar with his writings. I find Calvin and Theophylact differing views interesting.

Having failed to find any reference in Chrysostom's writings, I was reading Iraeneus writings this morning trying to seek for clues. While it too offers no clues to this particular passage, Iraeneus does talk about the destruction of Jerusalem in the past tense and references Josephus, indicating John the Baptist was "in the spirit of" Elijah. It does not appear from his writing (albeit, it was vague) that he felt Elijah and Enoch would return and all Jews would be saved.

I will admit I might have missed a work that describes all this.

[Agrarian]

Check out St. John C's Homily 57 on St. Matthew. It should be available on-line.

Also, read the section in St. John of Damascus -- also online, on the second coming.

[jo kus]

I do believe that the Apostles taught correctly. When their written works started coming forth, there was already a measure of knowledge against which to judge their authenticity.

Of course. This "knowledge" was called Apostolic Tradition - which you seem to refuse to take into consideration when developing doctrines and what God has revealed to man.

Regards

[jo kus]

This is a mischaracterization of the perspective of my arguments.

That is how I see you defend your concept of "the Bible has determined and interprets itself". Basically, it is a circular argument and presumes something that is not proven by itself - that it IS from God. EVERY BOOK!

My main disagreement with you is that I believe that God gets all the ultimate credit and glory for the creation and assembling of the Bible.

Yes, but that is not the point of discussion. You are merely steering the conversation away from my attack on your illogical point of view. The point is not "who gets the credit", the point is that without the Church, we wouldn't know what IS Scriptures. God has not chosen to reveal it in any other way then THROUGH the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth. St. Augustine himself said that "if it were not for the Catholic Church, I would not believe the Gospels". This means that SOMETHING has to vouch for God's Word. God doesn't give it in a manner that ALL men will see the OBVIOUS WORD of God. Don't you realize that many people do NOT believe that Christian Scriptures are from God? They are NOT self-attesting. You either believe the Church's witness or you don't. God gets credit because HE ESTABLISHED the Church...

Jesus said He will send HIS SPIRIT to the Church to ensure that it remains the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. Men by themselves are not infallible. God is and it is GOD who is responsible for making men in certain situations infallible. Thus, I don't claim that the "Church alone" gets "all" the credit... But God has decided to leave us with a "Supreme Court" that can interpret His revelation how and when HE sees fit.

Your arguments have carried the distinct implication that we Protestants OWE "your" men for the Bible itself, and that THEREFORE whatever "your" men say about it MUST be correct.

I am merely pointing out the facts of how we can know the Truth. I haven't said you owe us anything. I believe what is happening from your side is an adamant denial of connecting the Catholic Church with what Christ established. You will use any argument to circumvent the necessity of the Church so as to continue to use private interpretation of a book that you PRESUME is God's Word without any witness! By doing away with the Church, God's instrument of truth, you can maintain your own ideas of God and how to worship Him.

By logically approaching Christianity from an unbiased position, one becomes Catholic, or one does not become Christian. There is no argument that supports Protestantism's separation from God's Church. A person deep in history eventually will see the fallacy of the Protestant's position. Denying the instrument of truth established by God is a rejection of God - according to the Scriptures.

There is NOTHING wrong with questioning theological issues that have been left undefined. But if you believe that Scriptures are from God, are inerrant, then why do you refuse to believe that "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth"? Does the Bible say private interpretation is acceptable? Sure, question things. But obey once the Church has formulated doctrine as given it by the Holy Spirit. Part of having God as your king is to obey your king. Are you obeying God or yourself?

That is my area of contention with Protestants. Question. But when the Church says something - we obey, as if God Himself is commanding us. We humbly submit ourselves to God's Will, even if we don't fully understand.

Regards

[wmfights]

"This "knowledge" was called Apostolic Tradition - which you seem to refuse to take into consideration when developing doctrines and what God has revealed to man."
_________________________________

Of course this "Apostolic Tradition" was discarded AFTER the Apostles words were committed to text. It would be foolish to trust the veracity of oral teachings passed down from generation to generation by fallible men when the inerrant WORD of GOD is available. It would be equally foolish to trust historical documents that are not the inerrant WORD of GOD as equal to the WORD of GOD.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The phrase "through His blood" is not found in either the Jesuit or American Revised Versions; its omission can be traced to Origen (200 A.D.), who expressly denies that either the body or soul of our Lord was offered as the price of our redemption. Eusebius was a devoted follower of Origen; and Eusebius edited the Vatican Manuscript. The omission is in that MS and hence in the American Revised Version. Moreover, Jerome was a devoted follower of both Origen and Eusebius. The phrase "through His blood" is not in the Vulgate and hence not in the Jesuit Bible.

Here is the fatal parallel between the Jesuit Version and the American Revised Version. This omission of the atonement through blood is in full accord with modern liberalism, and strikes at the very heart of the gospel.

Fascinating find. It's that kind of "translation" that gives the game up and shows the true spirit behind most rewrites, whether they are contemporary or centuries old.

The Devil's in the details.

[HarleyD]

Of course. This "knowledge" was called Apostolic Tradition

If the Church knew that a book was written by John, and they knew that what John had written was inspired, then doesn't it seem a bit obvious that the first thing created was the inspired written word by which the fathers knew to be inspired? (Pardon my redundancy.) Inspired writing came first, tradition next.