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

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

[Agrarian]

"If by the "Thubingen divines" you mean Orthodox"

No, they were the Lutheran theologians who were exchanging letters with the Patriarch of Constantinople (EP.)

[kosta50]

Never thought of that. You may be right. I will say that the Thubingen divines, to my recollection, never raised that point with the EP, though

That's because I think Harley is making things up. It sounds "plausible" that the reason he didn't become Orthodox is that our "Pelagianism" is unacceptable (never mind our "traditions"). But that would be a difficult hypothesis to defend as the reason for all Protestants.

Most Protestants never heard of the Tubingen divines writing to Patriarch Jeremiah II in Constantinople, not once but thrice, because it did not produce the desired effect.

[jo kus]

Luther never deleted James from the Canon, he said it was a 'strawy epistle', but it is in the Luther Bible as scripture.

Fortunately for Protestants, he was talked out of this by his comrade, Melancthon. But there is plenty of evidence that he wanted it, along with Jude, Revelation, and some of John's epistles removed. And he got his way with the OT Deuterocannonicals.

As for the marignal note, it is the correct one since works have nothing to do with salvation, they show it (James).

Marginal note? That was no gloss. That was an outright change in meaning of the Scriptures. We aren't saved by faith alone, other Scriptures explicitly say it!

That is the Gospel that was taught since the beginning of Christiantiy

Hardly. What seems strange is that there is no indication of a "faith alone" theology among the Church Fathers the first 1000 years. Don't you find that curious? Maybe Protestants aren't infallible?

Now, now, even Jerome did not consider those Apocrypha books as 'scripture'

You have stated the EXCEPTION! Such matters are open to debate, but once the Church rules on such things, the case is closed. St. Jerome truly followed Christ by accepting those whom had been given authority to bind and loosen. Unlike Luther, St. Jerome submitted to God's instrument on earth. That is the difference between a saint and a Luther. Submitting one's will to God's will.

They are never quoted in the New Testament as Scripture by Christ or any apostle

Christ never quotes from MANY books in the Old Testament, such as Nehemiah or Chronicles. So should the "inspired Protestant" remove them because the "spirit" is guiding him? One wonders what "spirit" guided Luther to desire to remove books from Sacred Scriptures.

In fact, Paul quotes a pagan Greek author but he never quotes from the Apocrypha.

Sure he does. Who are the magicians that Moses fought against in the Pharoah's court? Where does the OT mention them? Yet, Paul knows their names - from the Apocrypha. And much of Paul's thought is from the book of Wisdom. James takes much from Sirach. And Jesus Himself celebrates a feast named only in the Maccabees corpus...

That is a vote that will cost you dearly in eternity, since you are placing your confidence in a man-made Church and not the words of God.

LOL!!! I have long ago fulfilled the Protestant requirement for salvation. I believe in Christ as my Savior and Lord... According to your standards, I got my bus ticket - as others have called this sort of salvation.

"...that was the light that sparked the great revival.(Ps.119:130)

LOL! Psalm 119 is refering to Luther? That's about the dumbest thing I have ever heard... You are quite brainwashed on Luther's contribution.

No the Lord Jesus Christ is [the pillar and foundation of truth], (not some Pope) as Peter acknowledges (1Pe.2:6-8) as does Paul (1Cor.3:11)

The Church is the Body of Christ. I am not making a false dichotomy of Church vs. Christ. The Scripture NEVER makes such a claim. Just Protestants. Which shows how much they know the Scriptures.

Regards

[jo kus]

We believe that God has spoken through the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments. They are the verbally inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for salvation, and the ultimate authority that stands over every realm of human knowledge and endeavor. Therefore, the Bible is to be believed in all that it affirms, obeyed in all that it requires, and trusted in all that it promises

Now, perhaps if they practiced what they preached, we'd be all one big, happy family. For in those same Scriputres, it tells us such things as "faith alone is dead" and "Hold onto the traditions given to you, whether by word or written letter". Somehow, those "Words of God" are ignored...

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

The Spirit speaks to individuals during Scripture reading! But He doesn't do it AGAINST the Church's teachings, because the Spirit was given to protect the Church, not individuals.

That sounds like the Spirit hears and obeys the Church. It is interesting that you say the Spirit does not protect individuals. I see the opposite idea in scriptures:

John 14:16-17 : 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

Rom. 8:9 : You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

---------------

What basis do you use to say that the Apostles taught correctly, but "who knows after that"? Where the Apostles super geniuses? Is God unable to lead people after those 12 supermen died?

Clearly they were not super geniuses. :) The Apostles were transformed at Pentecost. We know what they were like before and after, night and day. It's clear to me that they all received special grace that I presume included correct teaching for God and not for themselves. ... Yes, God is able to lead people after the Apostles died, we strongly disagree on the results of Him doing that.

Jesus made it quite clear that He chooses damaged goods to fulfill God's Will. Consider what Paul says about himself, yet, God worked powerfully AND INFALLIBLY through him.

That is certainly true, however I have no faith whatsoever that God works through today's Catholic hierarchy in any comparable way that He worked through Paul.

Well, that is good that Protestants send missionaries, except that they USUALLY are sent to Catholic countries to conduct proselytism, tickling the ears with false doctrine.

I can't speak for other Protestant churches, but our missionary trips are to places like Eritrea, our last big one. We also sponsor other Baptists who have gone to Sudan. There may be no more dangerous a place on earth for a Christian to be. Everything has to be done underground. Communications are filled with code to protect themselves and the people they are witnessing to. These folks are not looking for Catholics. :) In fact, after any mission trip in our church there is an after-report to the whole church. Not a single time have I ever heard anything like "... and then I met this Catholic and after talking to him, he converted." That just isn't in the picture at all, at least for us.

[AlbionGirl]

I thought you might find the following site interesting as regards why Calvin didn't look to the East.

Harley, I don't know if this link covers it or not, but if I remember correctly Calvin wasn't opposed to pictures of Christ necessarily, as in paintings, sculptures etc that were strictly confined to the sphere of art, what he was adamantly opposed to was their display and use in Churches.

I think both he and Augustine felt that once a person rested his eyes on an image of Christ, the natural process of the spiritual extension of one's hand to the Father or to the Son was blunted in a way that was not advisable. In other words, when you prayed before a statue, you really were praying before the statue, even if in part. Icons are bit different to me though, in that they don't have that dimensional aspect to them that enliven them the way a statue can become enlivened.

I'm not totally sure how I view this controversy, as Christ was a man too, so a representation of him on the Cross doesn't seem to me fall under the proscription of graven images. One thing though, that I think is a really bad idea, and that is to picture God the Father. All of the images I've seen of God the Father, picture him as an old man, and who once seen as such, the mind can't help but consciously or sub-consciously contemplate his not-too-distant death.

[jo kus]

Originally indulgences were given for the self-sacrifice of going on Crusade to the Holy Land

Indulgences were given long before the Crusades. Even St. Paul talks about indulgences (although he doesn't call them that) in 1 Cor 5 with the sexual deviant, and then later re-admits that man back into the community in 2 Cor. The practice of donning sack cloth until the Holy Thursday is another example of the practice of indulgences. St Cyprian and Tertullian both mention the practice. The Church has been given the power to bind and loosen temporal punishments due to sin and this was recognized very early in the practice of the Church.

Regards

[jo kus]

"...Uniatism. That's caused quite enough trouble already and, I think, Rome has rejected it, at a minimum in public"

I thought Uniatism were the Ukrainian Catholics living among the Russian Orthodox Catholics... Those living in the US are considered Uniate? Rome rejects the Eastern Catholics? I think you are mistaken. Rome has written encyclicals on the Eastern Churches - I'd have to look up the names of them. But Vatican 2 writes about them, considering them a bridge.

Regards

[jo kus]

Salvationally speaking, since we are only talking about adult Baptism here, what is the difference between Baptism and a regular confession?

Baptism washes away all sins. It is not dependent upon the contrition of the receipiant. We receive the seal of the Spirit, are made children of God, receive sanctifying grace (without which we cannot achieve divinization). Baptism gives us the theological gifts of faith, hope, and love. Confession IS dependent upon the contrition of the penitent. Willingly unconfessed sins are not forgiven. Confession restores sanctifying grace (if lost) and gives us additional grace to repel future temptations. But it doesn't give us another seal of the Spirit, nor does it "remake" us children of God. Baptism is our initiation into the Christian faith. It is critical to salvation.

Regards

[jo kus]

However, the very existence of these words in the 5th century indicate that the Church was a lot more hererodox than we are willing to admit.

I don't think "original sin" as meant by Orange had the same connotations that it did after Trent. Orange specifically refutes the Pelagian notion that Adam's sin does not effect his ancestors. Pelagius said that we commit sin by example from Adam. The Church Fathers consistently refuted that, calling Adam's sin the first sin and one we inherit as being part of our human nature. St. Augustine quotes numerous Fathers when discussing how Adam's sin affects us today.

Original sin, in the West, has additional meanings that Scholasticism discovered. But this was after Orange. I don't think that the East would have refuted the canons of Orange. And if I am not mistaken, one of the later Ecumenical Councils verified what was hammered out at Orange, but I'd have to double check that (if you want).

Regards

[jo kus]

Later Latin polemics insisted on a double eternal procession, with the Father and the Son being equally the source of the Spirit -- which is what is theologically heretical from the Orthodox perspective. Perhaps this is what you mean by the filioque being "incomplete."

The confusion here is that you weem to think that a double procession means two separate essences. Scriptures tells us that the Father sends the Spirit, and also, that the Son sends the Spirit. But they proceed from the same Divine Essence, the same Divine Principle.

More correctly, I think, we in the West should say "proceeds from the Father THROUGH [rather than "and"] the Son" when discussing the Spirit's procession.

Regards

[jo kus]

The Bible says that the Spirit will lead us individually (John 14:16-17, Rom. 8:9) and He will also lead God's Church corporately (Eph. 2:22). I haven't commented on the latter, as we do not agree on who "God's Church" is.

Yes, it does. But He leads us individually in a different manner than He does corporately. Paul doesn't give us the sense that we are to read the Scriptures outside the Church. He constantly appeals to HIS OWN authority on how the Community is to act and worship. Why would this be necessary IF the Spirit led everyone the same way on corporate matters? As to "who" is the Church, I have already said that Protestants are not necessarily outside the Church. Individual Protestants might very well be better Catholics than the ones who go to Mass twice a year...

There were hundreds of signs in the OT that Jesus was the Messiah. Many were literal, some required interpretation.

Can you name some "literal" ones that apply ONLY to Christ that requires no interpretation? I can't think of many off hand. Most of the Scriptures used as "Messiah verses" can be interpreted to Christ - or not, depending on one's openness to the Gospel.

It is a doctrine of proper context within the rest of scripture. Many things in the Bible were specifically intended to be interpreted

And where does this specific paradigm come from? Where does one get the "correct" mind to read the Scriptures? The Jews have the very same OT and have been reading it much longer - yet, they still don't agree with our interpretation. Well, we know that God is the reason, but practically, it is because the Church provides the proper manner of reading the Scriptures - in light of Christ.

I don't see it as any less superior to your system, which is to follow men who claim to have all the answers.

If God can provide an infallible book through infallible men, why exactly cannot God do the same thing through infallible men when gathered under the auspice of the Spirit?

Do you believe there is a level of equipment that is higher than "thoroughly"?

I never said there was something "better" than the Scriptures. I am arguing that 2 Tim 3 does not give the sense of EVERYTHING, denying that anything else can equip man... This is what Sola Scriptura means. It is the ONLY authority. The text never makes that claim.

This passage [Eph 4:11-13] says that teaching is good to prepare God's people. Do you suppose it means teaching that is contrary to scripture

That is not the issue! Why do you continuously pit the Church against the Scriptures? Ephesians 4 certainly doesn't imply that the teachers of the Church teach in contradistinction to the Scriptures! It only says that there is ANOTHER means of providing for the Christian towards perfection...And the Bible is not mentioned - although we KNOW that such teaching is NOT against the Bible. It is based on the Apostolic Teaching, whether oral or written.

teaching that is contrary to scripture (as it is today)?

I suppose if you say it enough, you'll begin to believe it. I have already shown how your own beliefs contradict Scriptures, such as baptism is not necessary for salvation and that man is saved by faith alone and that man cannot lose his salvation in heaven.

The teaching should not be of themselves but be in conformity with the scripture. Teaching scripture is good. Jesus did it all the time.

Teaching utilizes Scriptures. Everything we believe is either explicitly or implicitly found in Scriptures. But Scriptures are not the ONLY rule of faith. Scriptures can be interpreted in numerous ways, as Protestantism has shown. Many smart men who have read the Bible dozens of times cannot agree on some of the verses. Actually, many of the verses. Thus, we believe that the Bible is to be consistently read a particular way as expressed by the Apostolic Tradition, a continuity of 2000 years. This is what makes the Bible living for the Church.

Regards

[jo kus]

I haven't studied Calvin's influence on government except for a few articles posted here. However, my understanding is that he wasn't trying to create a theocracy. Rather it spawned democracies.

Really? I don't think Calvinism had anything to do with democracy! Funny how Calvinism produced countless more "rules" in the community than Catholicism ever did. Consider reading more about the Puritans in Massachusetts.

Regards

[InvisibleChurch]

after 8,000+ posts you'd think there was no more to say about this topic

[kosta50]

Be sure to notify the folks at the Catholic Encyclopedia when you find it

I can't find the desired information and must conclude that I may have confused +Photios with someone else (perhaps Celarius). I also don't have a transcript of the council of 890 which restored +Photios. The sources seem to concentrate only on the council of 880, which deposed him, and which the RCC, in a reversal, recognizes as the "Eight Ecumenical Council."

My memory probably misleads me, then, since I "remember" reading the text of +Photos's charges and was under the impression that one of the issues was unleavened bread used by the Latins. I can't think of why I would have thought that if I hadn't seen it. On the other hand, I never read Pat. Celarious's addition of azyme controversy on the list of Catholic heresies while emitting the filioque, which I discovered during this search.

As for Pope Leo III and the filioque, this is a matter of interpretation. John Romanides insists that he agreed to it theologically out of concern that Franks could be upset, but that his insistance on the Fathers and the Councils was a diplomatic way of saying otherwise.

Others interpret it straight forward: the Pope allowed filioque to be sung but not included in writing. Curiously, Encyclopedia Britannica seems to have it backwards.

"Yet in 809, when approached by Charlemagne's theologians, Leo confirmed the dogmatic correctness of the Filioque clause (the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son) introduced into the Nicene Creed; but, because that clause had always been rejected by the Eastern churches, Leo, in the interest of peace with the Greeks, urged that the creed should not be chanted in the public liturgy." (Encylcopedia Britannica)

"[Pope] Leo [III] accepts the teaching of the Fathers, quoted by the Franks, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as taught by Augustine and Ambrose. However, the Filioque must not be added to the Creed as was done by the Franks, who got permission to sing the Creed from Leo but not to add to the Creed. (John S. Romanides)

[jo kus]

The only passage that even comes close to attempting to claim that Baptism has salvific effects is 1 Peter 3:20-21. I have already made my case that it was not the water that saved Noah and his family, it was the ark.

That's not what the Scriptures said. You are trying to twist Scriptures again. Clearly, Peter is using the waters around the Ark (the Church) as a prefigurement of Baptism. Let me remind you again what the Bible SAYS!!!

"when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism" 1 Peter 3:20-21

As uncomfortable as this might be to you, the Bible clearly tells us that Baptism saves. Period.

There is a mountain of scripture against your interpretation. Baptism is symbolic of spiritual salvation.

It's more than a symbol. God works THROUGH this visible symbol. Otherwise, at what point are we made children of God?

Repentance is the inward step that saves and baptism is the outward, public representation of that. Here, "for" means "because of" just like in Matt. 12:41.

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. " Acts 2:38

Your interpretation makes no sense. Repent and be baptized ...in the name of the Jesus Christ because of the remission of sins?

There are two births needed to be saved. One is natural birth and one is spiritual birth. Neither involve a water Baptism. That comes later to observe the spiritual birth and to publicly identify with Christ's Church.

LOL!!! Whew! Stop it! There is only ONE birth needed to be saved! Spiritual. EVERYONE is born naturally, so it figures NOTHING into the formula on who is saved and who is not saved! HOW CAN AN UNBORN, NON-EXISTENT PERSON BE SAVED??? Christ Himself corrects Nicodemus' idea that salvation has anything to do with the fleshy birth...

Rom 6:2-4 speaks of baptism of the Spirit into Christ. Water baptism symbolizes this. Water isn't even mentioned here

LOL!!! What does the word "baptism" mean? To dunk in water? You are cracking me up with your defenses against the Scriptures. What is sad that NOT ONE of the Church Fathers, who read the Scriptures in Greek, make these types of interpretations. They can only come from someone who actually is in denial that they are wrongly interpreting Scriptures...

Heb 10:22-23 doesn't even speak of baptism of any kind. Neither does Ez. 36:24-28. Sure they do. What other "cleanse with water" and "giving a clean heart" do you suppose Ezekiel is talking about? Jeez.

Christ's ministry was not about salvation by ritual, it was about salvation by grace and faith.

What are you, a Greek Gnostic? Have a problem with the material? Christ did miracles using water, mud, spit. He didn't have an aversion to the Jewish customs and rituals, only when done with improper inner motivation. Christ didn't come to overturn the Law, but fulfill it - LOVE. Since we are a dual creation, living in the material and spiritual worlds, we contact God in both places. We worship God in spirit and truth, and we worship God with our bodies through rituals. Our entire person. Thus, God comes to us during the ritual of Baptism, as He promised, to baptize us into Christ's resurrection, applying the works of Christ to our individual person.

Regards

[jo kus]

The 'goats' in Matthew 25 are unbelievers not believers (sheep).

Where does Matthew 25 talk about unbelievers? Which Bible are you reading? It is about those who do not "DO". As James said, to not do something that you know you should do is sinful. This matches what Christ is saying. These goats did NOTHING evil, nor did the man with one Talent, nor did the foolish virgins. It is about NOT doing. Matthew 25 in its entirety has one message. Those who do NOT love will suffer the eternal fires of hell.

Regards

[kosta50]

I don't think "original sin" as meant by Orange had the same connotations that it did after Trent

The "original sin" at the Council of Orange was probably understood in Augustinian terms. The Orthodox teaching is not in line with that.

The "'original sin' is understood not so much as a state of guilt inherited from Adam but as an unnatural condition of human life that ends in death. Mortality is what each man now inherits at his birth and this is what leads him to struggle for existence, to self-affirmation at the expense of others, and ultimately to subjection to the laws of animal life." (The Doctrine of the Orthodox Church

The concept of inherited "guilt" as opposed to "damage" is a very different mindset that prevailed in the theology of the East and the West from Augstine onward.

To the Orthodox, our mortality is a consequence of the original sin which is transmitted to succeeding generations by our fallen nature. We suffer death on account of Adam. We have not broken the law by inheritiy mortality from our ancestral parents, so there is no guilt and if there is no guilt there is no need to "pay back" anything.

Sin is willful disobedience to God. Obviosuly, infants do not sin. So, there is nothing to "wash off."

[conservonator]

The Christian is not 'being' saved, he is saved (Eph.4:30)

We have been saved, are being saved and hope to be saved. Paul likens it to a race, and as you know, a race isn't over until you cross the tape. The tape is our judgment. Why pray for perseverance if salvation can't be lost?

[kosta50]

Scriptures tells us that the Father sends the Spirit, and also, that the Son sends the Spirit. But they proceed from the same Divine Essence

The Spirit is a Person of the Trinity who shares the same divine essence as the other Two. If the Spirit proceeds form the Divine Essence, then He proceeds form Himself. The trinitarian concept of God involves the Hypostases, not Essence. In the Creed, this is carefully worded that we "believe in One God, the Father..." where the Father and God are made one and the same lest it be confused. Thus when you say that the Spirit proceeds from the Essence (God), He proceeds from the Father. The Creed establishes the proper order of existence of the Trinity, for the Father is the source and cause of all, including the Son and Spirit. Remember that the Greek word used for the procession implies the source or the well, which the Latin procedere lacks.