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

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

[Kolokotronis]

A quick question. I have been rereading your posts for some months now and it is apparent that you are quite convinced that "salvation" is a once for all time event, one which many people can specifically point to by date. It will come as no surprise to you that those of us in The Church don't buy that theory. Now I know the scripture passages which you quote to support that position and the others which of late you have used to support the theory that no good work can be performed until after one is saved (a theory which stems directly from the idea that salvation is a discreet event). I am quite confident that those men we in The Church call the Fathers were rather more familiar with scripture than any of us, if only because they spoke the language and lived in the culture which created the scriptures, at least the early ones. None, not one, of the Fathers, even in speculation, ever held that salvation occured as you present it. It is a revolutionary innovation of the Reformers which has had, theologically speaking and as we have seen on this thread, extensive implications and effects. If fact, it appears to me that it was this very concept which allowed the Reformers to throw over all the praxis and virtually all the theology of the Western Church in favor of something totally new. Without this theory, Reformed Protestantism looses its theological foundation. So... Why do you believe that the entire Church, from men like +Clement and +Ignatius and +Polycarp, men who sat at the feet of the Apostles to the +Symeon the New Theologians and +Gregory Palamases and all the preachers of The Church between them and since were just plain wrong?

[blue-duncan]

"It will come as no surprise to you that those of us in The Church don't buy that theory"

Well, it will probably come as no surprise to you that those of us who are Christians trust what Paul, not the church fathers, has to say on the subject,

Eph 2:7 "That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Sounds simple enough even a child or the least educated could understand. After salvation comes the purpose for the salvation,

Eph 2:10 "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

We never put the cart before the horse lest someone might think it was the cart that was doing the pulling.

[jo kus]

Sorry, wrong again. Western Councils have often refined dogmatic, doctrinal and praxis points. The problem, by the way, evaporates when one takes the position that non ecumenical councils are by their nature local and therefore binding only on the particular church which is holding it.

Good point. This is why the West binds themselves to the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, while the East does not - although there are likely Easterners who believe what the West has formulated. Thus, the East is not considered heretical for not following the Ecumenical Counciliar decisions that followed the Great Schism.

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

"Well, it will probably come as no surprise to you that those of us who are Christians trust what Paul, not the church fathers, has to say on the subject."

You haven't answered my question. To say you believe what +Paul wrote is no answer at all. Why was The Church wrong? Why didn't one Father, even in speculation, believe what the Reformers came up with for an interpretation of +Paul 1500 years after the fact?

Was The Church apostate from the days of +Ignatius and +Clement? Were the Fathers deluded tools of the Evil One? You proclaim your belief in a sort of "pow, you're saved" theory of salvation and add to it a concept which says that once you get there, in this life as I understand it, you can never, ever, backslide but will simply go from one good deed to the next (history doesn't seem to bear out this theory). I don't doubt you believe this sincerely. It certainly is a comforting belief and doubtless leads to a life far easier than one of struggling with theosis. But you must have some reason for believing that the Holy Spirit abandoned The Church soon after Pentecost and went into hiding until a few priests got pissed off with Rome. Its a fair question, BD.

[Kolokotronis]

"Good point. This is why the West binds themselves to the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, while the East does not - although there are likely Easterners who believe what the West has formulated. Thus, the East is not considered heretical for not following the Ecumenical Counciliar decisions that followed the Great Schism."

Nor would The Church in the East expect The Church in the West to be bound by our local councils and their canons, virtually all of which are doctrinal and disciplinary in nature (we don't even expect other Orthodox jurisdictions to be bound).

[jo kus]

Good works are the result of our salvation, not a cause of our salvation.

The Blessed Trinity is the result of our works AND our faith. Faith is not the "vine"! Jesus Christ is the vine, the source of our good works. In the same light, our faith is ALSO from Jesus Christ. Faith is not some sort of conveyor belt that automatically brings forth works. The proof is in the book of James (among other places, but this seems to be a place where we seem to return to because he is so clear). The entire theme of James is that we must have works and faith to be saved. Eternally. First, remember he is speaking to Christians who have already been 'saved'...

"Therefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God. So then, leave all uncleanness and remains of malice and receive with meekness the word ingested within you, which is able to cause your souls to be saved. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." James 1:19-22

Man's sins, especially anger, does not produce righteousness of God. According to James 1:5-7, we are to ask God for aid, who gives generously. Doing such things can save.

"For judgment without mercy shall be done unto the one that has showed no mercy; and mercy boasts against judgment. My brethren, What shall it profit though someone says [that] they have faith and do not have works? Shall faith [without works] be able to save them?" James 2:13-14

Immediately preceding, James gives an example: "What would you do if the poor came among your congretation? Would you feed them and clothe them?" This is a question that we ALL must ask ourselves! What WOULD you do? And James asks this question to the Christian... Those who show no mercy for the poor will face judgment (see Matthew 25:31-45 on this...). James asks the rhetorical question "CAN FAITH {without love} SAVE????" Obviously, this has soteriological implications. The word "save" is there, and further along! Can a loveless faith save? Can you really consider yourself in love with God if you are like the Pharisee of the Good Samaritan story?

I am not taking a single verse. The whole BOOK of James SCREAMS of the "ROYAL LAW OF LOVE"! James 2 is hardly different from Galatians 5, where Paul says "the only thing that matters is faith working in love.". Note, Paul doesn't say "faith alone". He says faith WORKING IN LOVE.

Since James is asking the question of "what would you do if someone poor came into your midst", we are to realize that works of obedience DO NOT naturally flow from the believer! James is ADDRESSING BELIEVERS! We must recognize the DAILY struggle, to resist our sinful nature, which is not dead within us.

Scripture does not teach a mechanical process in which faith produces good works. Merely having faith does not mean one will refrain from sin in each situation. Also, having faith does not mean one will necessarily do good in each situation. James himself says that those who do NOT do what they know is good are SINNING.

James then compares the faith of the devil to the Christian who does not love. First, what must faith have?

"But without faith [it is] impossible to please God; for he that comes to God must believe that he is and [that] he is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him" Heb 11:6

First, we must believe in God's existence. Sure, even the devil has that faith. But secondly. The "rewarder of those that DILIGENTLY SEEK HIM". Diligently seeking God requires that we work to please Him, something that the demons and Christians with DEAD FAITH DO NOT DO!

The argument continues in James 2 with Abraham - who was justified by his work in offering Isaac on the altar.

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? Dost thou not see how the faith worked together with his works, and the faith was complete by the works?" James 2:21-22

Faith and deeds work together, and works complete or perfect Abraham's faith. And thus, James concludes that faith without works is dead. Clearly, works are a part of the salvation formula. To have no works is to have a dead faith, which CANNOT save. Thus, faith alone is dead.

Furthermore, James describes bad works that clearly jeopardize one's salvation. In Chapter 3, he clearly tells us that the evil of the spoken word can condemn people. Again, I remind you James is addressing Christians. James says:

"If anyone among you thinks to be religious and does not bridle their tongue, but deceives his own heart, his religion [is] vain. The pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation [and] to keep thyself unspotted from this world." James 1:26-27

There are so many verses that speak to the fact that we can in no way earn our salvation; it is a gift from God to be received with a grateful heart, made alive by the work of the Holy Spirit within us.

That's not the issue. The fact is that we must have faith, from God, and we must have works, from God, to be saved. Nothing from me ALONE can save me. Unless I am abiding in the vine, I will not have faith or good deeds. I will be like a branch cut off and thrown into the fire - even though I was ONCE part of the vine!

Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." -- 1 Peter 1:3-5

Peter also wrote that we must add works to our faith to be SAVED...

"Grace and peace be multiplied unto you in the knowledge of God and of our Lord Jesus, as all things that pertain to life and to godliness are given us of his divine power, through the knowledge of him that has called us by his glory and virtue, whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye might be made participants of the divine nature, having fled the corruption that is in the world through lust. Ye also, giving all diligence to the same, show forth virtue in your faith; and in virtue, knowledge; and in knowledge, temperance; and in temperance, patience; and in patience, fear of God; and in fear of God, brotherly love; and in brotherly love, charity. For if these things are in you and abound, they shall not let you be idle nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacks these things is blind and walks feeling the way with his hand, having forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Therefore, brethren, give all the more diligence to make your calling and election sure; for doing these things, ye shall never fall. Because in this manner the entrance shall be abundantly administered unto you in the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ". 2 Peter 1:2-11

Regards

[HarleyD]

Kolo-Western Councils have often refined dogmatic, doctrinal and praxis points.

jokus-This is why the West binds themselves to the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, while the East does not

Then you cannot point back to the "fathers" and "traditions" as a legitimate argument. Obviously there is no "tradition" for the Immaculate Conception otherwise the East would follow that same tradition. Either it is true or it isn't. Either the Church has ALWAYS held the tradition of the Immaculate Conception or it hasn't.

OTOH, if you're saying that in 1854 the Western Church formed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the East didn't agree with the concept then that's a different set of problems. According to New Advent, there was no controversy on the Immaculate Conception before the 12th century. This was a full 200 years AFTER the Orthodox left. If there was no controversy for 1200 years in the Church on the Immaculate Conception, then why doesn't the Orthodox follow it seeing how they left 200 years earlier?

Sorry, the reasoning don't make sense. Why does the Western Church believe in the Immaculate Conception and not the East? It certainly couldn't have been tradition. In the end you must conclude that the Church formulates doctrine, not on the basis of traditions of the fathers, but rather on what they conclude to be some sort of reasoning and guessing based upon other factors. Both the Orthodox and Catholics only pick and choose the appropriate father, and even parts of their works, to support their argument. This is what is called "tradition"; not that the doctrine has always been around.

Kolo-The problem, by the way, evaporates when one takes the position that non ecumenical councils are by their nature local and therefore binding only on the particular church which is holding it.

Why Kolo, this sounds like Protestantism. ;O)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The whole BOOK of James SCREAMS of the "ROYAL LAW OF LOVE"!

Does our love for God save us, or does God's love for us save us?

[jo kus]

Nor would The Church in the East expect The Church in the West to be bound by our local councils and their canons, virtually all of which are doctrinal and disciplinary in nature (we don't even expect other Orthodox jurisdictions to be bound).

Which is why the West is not heretical for not following the interpretations of "uncreated energies" expressed by the Orthodox St. Palamas. It certainly would be interesting to see both sides sit down and discuss such issues to clarify them. Certainly, our definitions would be the first thing to work on, judging on trying to understand this whole thing about "Energy" and how it differs from "Essence". After reading about this, I can come up with other interpretations of "Energy" from the Fathers that differs from the Saint and still be in line with Patristic thought. Just like the Bible, Patristic thought must ALSO be interpreted. Since the question has not been addressed in an East/West Council, we will have to put off the "West is wrong" discussion on "uncreated energies". It is a matter of point of view and interpretation of some of the Fathers.

Regards

[jo kus]

We never put the cart before the horse lest someone might think it was the cart that was doing the pulling.

I hadn't realized that "faith" was the cart of Ephesians 2. I had always thought it was GOD.

"it is the gift of God" Eph 2:7

Just as works, faith is a gift given to us from God to those whom He wills.

Regards

[HarleyD]

I have been rereading your posts for some months now and it is apparent that you are quite convinced that "salvation" is a once for all time event, one which many people can specifically point to by date....Why do you believe that the entire Church, from men like +Clement and +Ignatius and +Polycarp, men who sat at the feet of the Apostles to the +Symeon the New Theologians and +Gregory Palamases and all the preachers of The Church between them and since were just plain wrong?

If memory serves me correctly, Augustine knew when he became a Christian-at least forsook his pagan ways. But, it seems to me there is at least one Biblical person who could trace their salvation back to a specific date and that would be the Apostle Paul.

There are people who are brought up in the Church/church who have no idea of when they were saved simply because it was a gradual thing. There are others, OTOH, who do have points in time that they can refer back to. I would say that many of the early church fathers who became Christians most likely knew what date (maybe not precisely) they entered the Church. Simply because they did not write about it means nothing.

[wmfights]

"There is nothing comfy, or easy, when the HOLY SPIRIT convicts you of sin. That failure to walk in a way that glorifies GOD will bother you morning, noon and night

I call it ingratitude to God. But the effects are just the same."
_____________________________________________

Why do you call it ingratitude to God?

[monkfan]

The best example is prohibition of kneeling on Sundays (by the First Ecumenical Council), yet Roman Catholics, Antionchan Orthodox (in America)...

Actually, no, we don't. Sorry.

[blue-duncan]

"To say you believe what +Paul wrote is no answer at all."

Of course it is an answer. If the early church fathers moved away from Paul's position that we are saved by grace through faith alone, then they are wrong and in error. If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have rejected Paul's statement then they too are wrong. Why no one until Luther saw this is a mystery to me. Maybe they were too busy to notice they had moved away or maybe they were too comfortable to see they had veered from the truth. Maybe they liked the power that keeping the people coming back for their salvation brings. Maybe someone tore that page out of their scrolls.

The Holy Spirit didn't abandon them. They walked away from the truth and the Holy Spirit waited until some one like Luther came back to the light. I'm sure history has some lone souls during this period of the dark ages that believed the truth and paid dearly for it.

Now as to this, "You proclaim your belief in a sort of "pow, you're saved" theory of salvation and add to it a concept which says that once you get there, in this life as I understand it, you can never, ever, backslide but will simply go from one good deed to the next", I don't have the foggiest idea where you came up with this notion. Of course Christians backslide and sin, that's what 1 John 1:7 "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." is all about.

However to sin after one has trusted Christ for salvation does not mean one loses salvation; it just means one has sinned and needs to confess the sin to the Father, and repent of the sin in order to restore fellowship not family standing

[Kolokotronis]

"If the early church fathers moved away from Paul's position that we are saved by grace through faith alone, then they are wrong and in error. If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have rejected Paul's statement then they too are wrong."

Doesn't it strike you just a little odd that ALL the Fathers, even +Clement who knew +Paul interpreted his words differently from the way Protestantism does and did? These were the people the Romans were throwing to the lions, crucifying, slaying in the area, BD. I find it hard to believe that they immediately upon +Paul's death went on a power trip as the leaders of mostly poor people whose Christianity was tantamount to a death sentence.

"The Holy Spirit didn't abandon them. They walked away from the truth and the Holy Spirit waited until some one like Luther came back to the light."

What happened to those people from whom the Holy Spirit walked away, apparently the entire Church? Were none of them saved? Did they all go to "hell"?

"I'm sure history has some lone souls during this period of the dark ages that believed the truth and paid dearly for it."

No doubt, but are you saying that those dark ages started with the death of +Paul and lasted until roughly Luther without the Holy Spirit acting?

"I don't have the foggiest idea where you came up with this notion."

Gee, BD, what does OSAS mean? I've seen this all over this thread.

"However to sin after one has trusted Christ for salvation does not mean one loses salvation; it just means one has sinned and needs to confess the sin to the Father, and repent of the sin in order to restore fellowship not family standing"

Is there any difference between trusting Christ for salvation and actually being saved? And what happens if the saved person never repents?

[wmfights]

"Why no one until Luther saw this is a mystery to me. Maybe they were too busy to notice they had moved away or maybe they were too comfortable to see they had veered from the truth."
_____________________________________

If the church becomes an extension of the state anyone who doesn't follow church teachings is not only committing heresy, but also is committing treason.

On another note, what about all those poor lost souls who were never taught the TRUTH about the SCRIPTURES. If Calvin was right those that were the elect were saved, but how? They had all been taught false doctrine believing in justification by works. How did they come to know the TRUTH?

[Forest Keeper]

The Catholic teaching can be, perhaps called perseverance of the elect, ... -- We believe that the very fact that the Gospel speaks so much about perseverance, moral behavior and charity points to the presence of free will in the faithful, who can choose for the good or for the evil on his own accord; he can therefore respond to grace with good works or fail to do so and perish.

I presume that you would say that all of the elect go to heaven. It cannot be an accident that all of the elect just happen to persevere on their own free will choices. Therefore, do you then believe that God's elect are REALLY only those who choose of their own free will to persevere? If God does not actually choose His own elect, why should they not be called man's elect?

[kosta50]

Those are always my excuses (well, not pregnancy) for using them when I'm in Greece! :)

Kolo, just take a look around you, when you are there, and you will see heads, with hair white as snow, of people who could be your parents, standing the entire 2-hour Divine Liturgy, and you will feel no desire to sit. :)

[kosta50]

Harley D: Protestants have Catechism as well. There is quite a bit of difference between memorizing doctrinal beliefs and study to show yourself approved

jo kus: Well, here, I will agree with Harley. However, I will point out that Catholics ALSO do not place memorization of the catechism as important, above practice.

I suppose our catechisis is a la little more rigorous than either of yours' — the Orthodox Divine Liturgy still has the Litany of Catechumens, and a lengthy catechumization ("learning") period before baptism/chrismation that involves a lot of questions and asnwers and therefore is not based on rote memory.

[kosta50]

Brilliant, jo.

Scripture does not teach a mechanical process in which faith produces good works

That was the point Kolo made earlier to Dr E, when he said Reformers had to devise this new theology in order to throw away what the Church taught for 1,500 years. Hence, Luther came up with his "pecca fortiter" which now many Protestants try to distance themselves from without admitting Luther was wrong.

It was Luther, after all, who took it upon himself to throw out the Book of James from the New Testament because it clashes to the bone with his man-made religion.