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

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

[P-Marlowe]

So why mock standing, then? Are you suggesting that standing is an "improper" posture while praying?

It was Jesus who criticized the Phaisees for standing on the street corners and praying. Zeeba was just using the Lord's illustration. Were you not aware of the Lord's illustration?

But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. (Mat 6:3-6 KJV)

If you don't see the Protestants looking and acting all holy, then perhaps it is because they are admonished to do their good works so that they are NOT noticed by men.

[jo kus]

I think I do understand your idea of a pure inner disposition, and the need for love not to come from a selfish source. I still do not understand the works-for-pay idea as a distinction that is used to explain that all the deeds done by Catholics to attain salvation do not count as works. Even regarding love, I know from personal experience that sometimes love can be real work. :)

I think the word "works" is part of the confusion. When Paul speaks about "works", he generally is speaking of your concept of earning salvation. When James speaks about "works", he is speaking of doing something, but not necessarily earning something. When Paul speaks about love, he doesn't call it a work. Definitions seem to be the problem. I will distinguish between Paul's "work" as earning something, and "deeds of Love" as something necessary for salvation. Also, as Catholic doctrine states, initial justification (what you call "being saved" upon Baptism) is strictly based on our faith and not dependent on any action we do (besides repentance). In a sense, our disagreement is not as drastic as many believe. The problem, again, is your definition of "saved" and our definition of "saved" is generally two different points - you to that sinner's prayer, and us, to eternal life in heaven.

Love is "work" in that it requires difficult action, but Paul never attributes that as a "work" in earning something. Love requires picking up our cross and taking the narrow road - and love is not a burden. It takes some meditation, but it begins to make more sense when you experience doing things for others because GOD loves them, not for personal gain.

I am unaware of any commandment or early Christian belief that we are to work for pay to attain salvation

Probably because the Bible is not a historical book that records BOTH sides of heretical/orthodox teachings, but rather, a collection of writings that teach the recipients how to be more orthodox. I wouldn't expect to find within the Scriptures the heterodox teachings that command Christians to follow the Mosaic Law without regard to love! Perhaps if we had the writings of heterodox Judaizers, it would be more clear. But the fact that Paul wrote the letter of Romans makes it clear that SOMEONE was teaching incorrectly that we are saved by works of the law.

That's why I think that God does not forsake the elect, even if some of them temporarily stray.

I agree. Surprise! Of course God doesn't abandon HIS elect. The problem, from OUR point of view is "am I of the elect?" We don't know - even taking your point of view, perhaps my sinner's prayer didn't "take". The Scriptures (both OT and NT) talk about a person's name being blotted out of the book of Life! God knows our response to Him in our future (His present), so He knows that any fall we have is temporary. Thus, He certainly will ensure that we will return.

The $64,000 question is "does God base His grace on what He foresees in our response to us"? The Catholic Church does not make a defined rule on that question - there are several schools who say "yes" and others that say "no"...Can we ever know in this life? Doubtful.

I respectfully disagree that God sees us as adult children. I'm pretty sure that He sees us as young children (dumb as sheep) who have no idea what is best for them on anything. :)

Sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean adult children, I was thinking of teenagers...Yikes! Young children trust their parents too much for the analogy to work for "fallen away" people. Teenagers, on the other hand, are questioning their parents (like those who are falling away). Sure, we can "force" our teenagers to not join a cult. But in the end, THEY have the choice of running away. Trust me on this... The analogy fails in either case, I suppose, because God CAN prevent us from doing something ultimately, while we can't (even with young children). The bottom line to the problem, though, is that WE don't know our ultimate destiny. Sure, we are saved upon Baptism, we are healed, washed of sins, and so forth. But to me, Christ's teachings seem to indicate that there is something more than the one-time proclamation. Luke and Matthew both talk about those who merely give lip-service to God will be sitting outside the Wedding Banquet. Perseverance is too big a theme in the Scriptures to ignore and posit them as a degree of secondary rewards.

Regards

[jo kus]

I infer my belief that God saves only the elect from what you just said. While the blood of Christ is sufficient to save all men, it is, to borrow a word, only efficacious to the elect.

Then we agree on that.

Now, the question - what makes grace efficacious? LOL!

Regards

[jo kus]

So your inference "While the blood of Christ is sufficient to save all men, it is, to borrow a word, only efficacious to the elect" is your own construct.

Sorry, kosta, I am using the word "efficacious" because we Catholics use it to define the difference between grace that is effective or responded to (efficacious), and one that is sufficient to accomplish the task that God wills, but the person DOES NOT respond to. It is a theological construct based on the De Fide belief that grace is not irresistible. (for example, 2 Cor 6:1)

It seems by the rest of your post that you and I (Catholics and Orthodox) agree on this. Sorry for the use of a non-Biblical word!

Brother in Christ

[jo kus]

Jo, you are correct, but you are responding to P-Marlowe, who misrepresented what I said.

Based on your previous posts and knowledge, I figured that you were being misunderstood or the post didn't come out the way you would have liked, so I sent a CC copy to you after trying to explain what you "probably" meant. I am glad that you clarified it and that I got the gist of what you meant to write. Regards

[jo kus]

Jo, you are correct, but you are responding to P-Marlowe, who misrepresented what I said.

Based on your previous posts and knowledge, I figured that you were being misunderstood or the post didn't come out the way you would have liked, so I sent a CC copy to you after trying to explain what you "probably" meant. I am glad that you clarified it and that I got the gist of what you meant to write.

Regards

[zeeba neighba]

Thank you.

[Forest Keeper]

Baptism is necessary to allow the potentiality of union with God, and in that sense Baptism remits the original sin. Most baptized, however, go on to commit actual sin even after baptism, and only some of them, but not all, will be saved in the end.

Hi Alex -

I infer that without baptism, and presumably the performance of the other required sacraments, that union with God cannot be achieved. This leads me to ask what Catholics say about the salvation of those who have never had access to the sacraments, or those of non-Catholic Christian faith. On another thread, one Catholic explained to me (in effect) that, say, for Protestants, if we don't know that we should be Catholics then we might get a pass, but we are rolling the dice. I am curious as to how the Catholics on this thread would answer.

You then go on to say that most people who are baptized go on to commit actual sin even after baptism. Does this mean that some do not?

[Cronos]

If you equate "good life" with Godly life and suppose that a truly lost person can lead a truly Godly life, thus winning salvation, then perhaps we are farther apart than I had thought. :)

I say that no-one is truly lost at the start of their life. God is willing to save them at every stage of their lives, they just have to surrender. The truly lost are lost at the end of their earthly bondage, not before their birth as you believe.

[Cronos]

ok, FK, take it this way -- As per what you say, only God knows that, so let's make that supposition that no on here on this forum, either you or me or anyone else is part of your "elect".

[Cronos]

Dr. E, the KJV is more distorted from the Scriptures than I had earlier supposed. Thank you for bringing this up and posting it.

[Cronos]

We all may believe that we truly believe, but at least most if us do not fool ourselves to believe we are free of sin, Christ-like.

Seemingly, our Protestant friends over here suppose that they already know God's mind that they already believe they are Christ-like. I would equate that will fool-hardy and misplaced arrogance.

[Forest Keeper]

The term itself ["elect"] is not unorthodox, but our Protestant friends apply it to mean that those who made a sincere profession of faith (or perhaps, a sincere profession of faith in a Protestant setting) are those elect, and do not shy away form calling themselves that. It is a fast track to sainthood, unavailable to us.

We do believe that salvation is achieved when we accept Christ as our Lord and Savior into our hearts. I don't even mind calling it a fast track because it is scripturally based, and it is so simple. How many times did Jesus forgive a person's sins or confirm true faith based on only one thought, or even one sentence?

We have the centurion in Luke 7. After the expression of one thought by the centurion, we have Luke 7:9 -

When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel."

That was it. If Jesus says you have faith, then you have TRUE faith and are saved. It sounds to me that Jesus believed that the centurion was one of the ones given to Him by the Father. Do you agree?

I'm sure there are many examples of this, but one more example is the thief on the cross. His complete salvation was fully attained based on one statement of true faith. It was simple, and I, for one, believe that it was meant to be simple.

P.S. It absolutely is available to you too. :)

[Cronos]

FK, Harley, wouldn't this be a differentiating point between the Apostolic Church teachings and Protestant beliefs : God desires that all men be saved?

The way I see the concept of the "elect" says that the above statement is wrong.

[Cronos]

I'll turn it around on you:

Has God chosen you for salvation?

Do you know? What if you're not one of the "elect" and in consequence, you were created for the express purpose of burning in hell?

[Cronos]

but why must you Protestants immediately accuse the Pope for everything the Catholics or Orthodox (when they are confused with Cathoics) have to say?

It's a knee-jerk reaction as centuries of indoctrination can't be changed. They used to think in the 19th century that we sacrificed children and bayed at the full moon -- something most ;-P no longer consider!! (pun intended)

[Cronos]

That would make you a protestant.

So, are you making everyone who disagrees with a Bishop of Rome, past or present on any matter: theological, political etc. a Protestant? So, if a Pope in the 12th century wore green and I don't like the color, I'm Protestant?

That's the problem with protestants -- they consider themselves by one definition only: they are not Catholics. The Orthodox don't do that, not a negative definition. So, if you want to club in protesters, you would include Lutherans, Calvinists, Mormons, Anglicans, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Methodists, Unitarians, Wesleyans, Christian Scientists(?!) etc. all under the same category. What a bunch!

[P-Marlowe]

I'll turn it around on you:

That's not how its done here. You answer my questions and then I'll answer yours.

My question:

Has God chosen you for salvation?
If so, then when did he do it?
What does the Bible say about when God chose you for salvation? Do you know?

"I don't know" will be a perfectly acceptable answer.

[Kolokotronis]

" Did my previous answers to you satisfy? Also please see my more recent posts just above."

All set! :)

[P-Marlowe]

So, are you making everyone who disagrees with a Bishop of Rome, past or present on any matter: theological, political etc. a Protestant? So, if a Pope in the 12th century wore green and I don't like the color, I'm Protestant?

If the fact that the Pope wore green caused you to break fellowship with Rome, then I'd have to say that you would be a Protestant. You broke fellowship in protest. That is the definition of a protestant.

The Orthodox don't do that, not a negative definition.

They broke fellowhsip with Rome over theological points. Hence, by the same definition that Luther was a protestant, the Orthodox are protestants.

So, if you want to club in protesters, you would include Lutherans, Calvinists, Mormons, Anglicans, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Methodists, Unitarians, Wesleyans, Christian Scientists(?!) etc. all under the same category. What a bunch!

Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Chistian Scientists do not claim to have ever been in fellowship with Rome nor do they claim to be protestants. They all believe that they were a restoration of a Gospel that was never present in Rome and further, they do not claim to be protestants nor do they have any theological connection to Rome or to the reformation. I'm not sure if Unitarians even claim to be Christians.