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

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

[fortheDeclaration]

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?

Now, you know that we have no Eastern church Fathers writings that go back to the first two centuries, only fragments.

[fortheDeclaration]

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?

First, we Baptists believe there were always those who were true believers who were not part of the 'organized church' either Eastern or Western.

That is why we really do not regard ourselves as 'Protestants'.

Second, you know that we do not have alot of information from those days since the organized church regarded any dissent as 'heresy' and thus, those writings were destroyed.

Third, church father's have no greater access to the truth then we do today, the Holy Scriptures, interpreted by the Holy Spirit to the individual believer (1Cor.2:14)

[fortheDeclaration]

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.

Well, that is not exactly true.

Yet in other moods, with a lack of consistency which is understandable, these writers evince a deeper sense of man's dependence upon God. Ambrose for example, states that grace is not bestowed as a reward for merit, but 'simply according to the will of the Giver'. A man's decision to become a Christian, he explains, has really been prepared in advance by God; and indeed every holy thought we have is God's gift to us. Ambroisiaster agrees with him that grace is granted freely, not in reward to any merits to ours; and Vicorinius insists most plainly that very will to do good is the work of God and owes its existance to the operation of His grace (Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly, p.356-357)

[wmfights]

"I rather rely on the "GOD-BREATHED" inerrant WORD of GOD

As you do, read it: you will find my views confirmed and yours rejected."
_______________________________________

The only way your views are confirmed is with the tortured mistranslations your magestrium has told you to believe.

[fortheDeclaration]

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.

Well, here are a couple of Eastern Church Fathers, that seems to agree with the 'Baptist' view.

Theodore lays great stress on the existance in men of free will, an attribute belonging to rational beings as such...But if we are to pass from our present condition to the blessed life which God has in store for us,we shall have to receive it as a gift from Him. Theodoret's view is that, while all men need grace and it is impossible to tkae a step on the road to virtue without it, human will must collaborate with it. 'There is a need', he writes, of both our efforts and divine succour. The grace of the Holy Spirit is not vouchsafed to those who make no effort, and without that grace our efforts cannot collect the prize of virtue'. But in the same context he acknowledges that our exertions as well as our believing are gifts of God, and that this recognition does not nullify free will but merely emphasizes that the will deprived of grace is unable to accomplish any good' (J.N.D.Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p.373-74)

So the notion that the 'church fathers' were all against what is being argued for by the Baptists and Protestants is simply nonsense.

We just don't go into their writings to find a defense for our views, since Scripture is the final authority for doctrines, not the opininons of men.

[conservonator]

Theodoret's view is that, while all men need grace and it is impossible to tkae a step on the road to virtue without it, human will must collaborate with it. 'There is a need', he writes, of both our efforts and divine succour. The grace of the Holy Spirit is not vouchsafed to those who make no effort, and without that grace our efforts cannot collect the prize of virtue'. But in the same context he acknowledges that our exertions as well as our believing are gifts of God, and that this recognition does not nullify free will but merely emphasizes that the will deprived of grace is unable to accomplish any good'

If that's the "Baptist" view then it looks like all you need is a valid priesthood and all seven Sacraments and you'll be praying the rosary in no time:) The text you posted is a very good explanation of the role faith, works and free will play in our salvation, a very catholic notion. Unfortunately, it does little to promote the view that only the "saved" are capable of good (grace enabled) works, it merely stresses the fact that we are unable to save our selves through our own actions.

[Kolokotronis]

Here's a link to a fascinating commentary on Calvin and +John Chrysostomos. I never knew any of this. It leads me to wonder, however, if Calvin and at least some of the Reformers were so enamored of The Fathers, why they didn't simply become Orthodox? I have referred before to the letters of the Thubingen divines to Pat. Jeremias II and his responses. That exchange simply became, at least on the Lutheran side, argumentative and contentious, as if they refused to accept that the East might have a clue about what the eastern Fathers had written. From what little I can see of Calvin, he didn't feel that way. Any ideas?

By the way, here's a link to a very interesting article on this subject:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/religious_studies/SBL2005/Ward.htm

[Kolokotronis]

A, as a rather sweeping generalization, I agree with Kosta. One small advantage Kosta, Alex and to a far lesser extent, I may have over you is that we all have a rather keen awareness of and sensitivity to just how very, very, fundamentally and profoundly different East is from West. People in the East just don't see the world the same way people in the West, especially Americans, do. This was doubtless even more true 1100 years ago than it is today. But its the same world both East and West are looking at. Kosta's term "linguistic apartheid" struck me as soon as I read it. The language difference between East and West had a deep and lasting effect on how we "talk about" the Faith that East and West see from different angles. I don't believe we will any time soon come to a point where talking the same talk will indeed express believing the same beliefs. For any reunion to have meaning and permanentcy the East and the West really do have to talk the same talk, but far more importantly believe the same beliefs. At base I think Kosta is right that, other than issues surrounding the papacy, the "point" of our Faith is the same, the purposes of our sacraments the same, etc. But I know Kosta will agree that leaping from that to communion is a leap we simply cannot and will not make. The Latin Church may sing a Syrenesque song of unity with invitations to intercommunion while at the same time telling us to obey our bishops, but frankly that very invitation itself is an example of how differently Orthodoxy and the Latin Church view The Church.

[annalex]

I can buy my way into heaven. Or am I thinking about indulgences?

Good works are necessary for salvation because they increase our faith (Luke 17:5-10; James 2:20-26; Apocalypse 22:12). Work for reward do not (Romans 4:4-5). Indulgences, even when they were allowed to be sold, did not work for salvation, but as penance of a confessed and absolved sin.

[jo kus]

Thanks for your Eastern expertise and take on how the East views things. It is interesting to think why EXACTLY are some communities not considered in communion. I suppose everyone has different "guidelines", some being more strict, some putting more emphasis on other things. I wonder what an Orthodox bishop, when questioned, would say on this issue, versus a Latin bishop.

Regards

[jo kus]

The Protestants have no Apostolic authority since not a single bishop joined Luther's heresy when it was legitimized by the German authorities. Without apostolic lineage and authority through laying of the hands there can be no valid priesthood and no valid sacaraments. It is a man-made "church."

True. We don't even call them a "church", but a "community" (Vatican 2, Constitution of the Church). We reserve that for other, apostolic communities, such as ourselves, the Orthodox, and I would assume, the Coptics and Armenians, but I am not sure on them. Apostolic succession is very important to all of us. To Protestants, of course, it is meaningless.

Regards

[wmfights]

"We just don't go into their writings to find a defense for our views, since Scripture is the final authority for doctrines, not the opininons of men."
________________________________

On the one hand, you have the "GOD-BREATHED" inerrant WORD of GOD, which, IMHO, all posters on this thread will agree are infallible. We of course have some serious disagreements over translation, but we all agree that the SCRIPTURES are the inerrant WORD of GOD.

On the other hand, you have large institutions that have supplemented SCRIPTURE with doctrines that they say are equal to SCRIPTURE such as "Tradition" and the teachings of the "church fathers". All of which, tend to expand the authority and control of their institution.

For me it's really straight forward. The only source on Earth today that you can be certain is true and accurate is The BIBLE.

[annalex]

what makes Church a "valid" church?

My Catholic horse sense is that apostolically valid priesthood administering valid sacraments does.

The Catholic view is that anyone validly baptized is Catholic. This is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is no Church visible and invisible, as the Protestants. self-servingly would tell us, as baptism, as well as apostolic succession, is a visible thing.

Now, some Catholics (thusly defined) fall off almost as soon as they are baptised. The Protestant Catholics fall off as soon as they fail to receive their sacraments, or fail to adhere to the Church's moral teaching, whichever comes first. The Catholics Catholics fall off quite often just as soon in the similar manner, although the lucky few remain in the Church in spirit as well as in the body. The Orthodox Catholics remain Catholic often the longest as the Orthodox Church is less infected with western liberalism and the Orthodox tend to obey their bishops, while the Orthodox sacraments are perfectly valid. It is entirely possible that there are, by that method of tally, more Catholics in the Orthodox East than there are in the corrupt West.

[Kolokotronis]

"Yet in other moods, with a lack of consistency which is understandable, these writers evince a deeper sense of man's dependence upon God. Ambrose for example, states that grace is not bestowed as a reward for merit, but 'simply according to the will of the Giver'. A man's decision to become a Christian, he explains, has really been prepared in advance by God; and indeed every holy thought we have is God's gift to us. Ambroisiaster agrees with him that grace is granted freely, not in reward to any merits to ours; and Vicorinius insists most plainly that very will to do good is the work of God and owes its existance to the operation of His grace"

This is an expression by Ambrose of the "consensus patrum" on grace, etc. It is thoroughly Orthodox. What is your point? That this means "pow, you're saved"? It is absolutely the teaching of The Church that the grace of God falls on the good and the evil equally, like the rain on the earth and that it is totally unmerited.

[jo kus]

I'm pretty sure that this is nowhere in his writings. This was a later point of contention. St. Photius in his encyclicals responded pretty specifically to the accusations of "heresy" on the part of Latin missionaries in Bulgaria.

To be honest, I think what REALLY happened is that Bulgaria was seen as a "Latin" territory by Rome (Thrace seen almost as part of Italy), so when the Bulgarian king converted and the Orthodox sent missionaries, the Latins got upset. So the Latins sent their own missionaries, no doubt explaining to the Bulgarians that the Latins were closer to the "real" faith and practice". Thus, the Orthodox got upset when their missionaries were sent packing by the Bulgarian king. I am not pointing out that either "acted improperly", I am just pointing out that both sides felt their proverbial toes were stepped on, much like what is happening in the Ukraine (from what I understand from your point of view) - although I am not up to speed on the particulars.

It seems that politics is more at the heart of the matter than theology. Theology is a tool used by the political powers to bash over the head of ignorant people to convince them the other side is wrong. We both have our share of using these tactics.

I have just finished reading about the Iconoclastic heresies. What is interesting is how much politics was a big part of what we believe in now, as there is plenty of evidence from the Fathers to support EITHER view - although in the end, as in everything else Christian, going to the Christological formulas solved the problem.

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

"So the notion that the 'church fathers' were all against what is being argued for by the Baptists and Protestants is simply nonsense."

Sorry. You quotes from +Theodore and Theodoret have little or nothing to do with "pow, you're saved". Like I said not one Father ever taught that.

By the way, Theodoret is, or at least can be, a very tricky, even dangerous fellow to quote, but of course he can be proof texted!

[annalex]

I meant to ask you. I came across this paraphrase of Council of Carthage (AD 418) decrees:

1. Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
2. New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
3. Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
4. The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
5. Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
6. Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
7. The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.
8. The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.
9. Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a "middle place" (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the "kingdom of heaven" and from "eternal life".

Catholic Encyclopedia

How about the mentioning of Original sin in (2)? Do the Orthodox view the Carthage Council of 418 as binding?

[jo kus]

Yep, just checked. The word "politics" shows up 0 times in scripture.

Now, look up "bible"! You know what I mean. The concept is there in both Testaments.

Actually Calvin and the Reformers were very big on structuring government and their principles are credited with establishing many democracies including the United States. However, they attempted to apply God's commandments to government laws just as we are commanded to "do justice".

No doubt. Who was it that wrote "City on a Hill" so long ago? I recall his thesis was instrumental for our current foreign policy, even today. However, theocracy is not a great form of government when people are forced into a particular means of worhsip.

And somehow I can't picture Paul as "politicing" against those "superapostles".

Why do you think he was combating them? He was trying to get his voice heard over the voice of his opponents. It's about authority. That is "politicing", to me. I am not disdainful of what Paul did - he found it necessary under the situation. But he acted just the same to maintain his particular brand of Christianity among the Corinthians.

Don't worry about the recipe for our Eucharistic hosts. It is water and wheat. Pretty simple.

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

Is this the canon you refer to?:

"CANON LXXII. (Greek lxxv.)

Of the baptism of infants when there is some doubt of their being already baptized.

ITEM, it seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the Moorish Legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such from the barbarians."

I think its a stretch to say that it refers to "Original Sin" but on the other hand Blessed Augustine was at the council and seems to have played a dominant role. That he might have pitched his innovation shouldn't surprise anyone. In any event, Carthage was a local council and as such isn't binding in any dogmatic way. I suspect the Roman Church would agree, since if it is binding, Rome's got some big time explaining to do! :)

[annalex]

There is a specific list of mortal sins -- seven in number, I believe. An unforgiven venial sin does not keep one out of heaven, but one needs purification from it in purgatory.

This is a bit too simple. There is no list to check off. The faithful has to do an examination of conscience and various lists of possible sins are of help in that. The seven cardinal sins

1. Pride
2. Envy
3. Wrath
4. Sloth
5. Lust
6. Avarice
7. Gluttony

are one useful list, as are the Ten commandments, as is any other inspirational material one finds. you might notice that the Cardinal sins are listed by the defects of the soul, while the Commandments list sins by the harm they do. Both are but analytical tools to understand a specific, often complex, sinful act. There are also disciplines he receives from his spritual advisor, bishop or from Rome, e.g prior penances, fasting and abstinence rules, mass attendance, etc. However, it is the faithful who does the analytical work of relating his deeds and thoughts to all this material. He relays his concerns to the priest and if need be the priest helps him decide if there was a mortal sin involved. He is not required to make the call as to what sin is it, he simply states what the deed or thought was that he feels uneasy about. I had occasions when I penitently confessed stuff that the priest ruled venial, and I had occasions when I expected it to be venial and the priest gave me a significant penance. It is not legalistic at all in the confessional, at least not in my experience.

Next, venial sin is absolved in the course of the Mass; it is not carried to Purgatory to be absolved.

Finally, the Purgatory is for purification of all committed and absolved (either through confession or through a general absolution at Mass) sin, both mortal and venial. The sin is already absolved through the merits of Christ; the purification prepares the faithful for the beatific vision of paradise. One can shorten or avoid the stay in Purgatory through penitential work of himself or of others (this is where the indulgences come in) before his death. The comparison that is often made is that if sin is a tumor then sacramental absolution is the surgery that removes the tumor; the purgatory is where the surgical wound heals.