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

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

[HarleyD]

I see a coach as a person who sits on the sidelines watching what is happening in the game. Occassionally he'll call a player or two over, give them instructions, and sends them back into the game. He is only involved in the game from the sidelines. This is NOT the way I see our Lord working.

I would say He is in the game with us. When a ball comes towards us, He gives us the boast we need to catch it. When someone is going to tackle us, He makes us duck our heads. And all Christians will always run across the finish line simply because of His strength to reach it.

[HarleyD]

Thank you, Pope Marlowe!

Hmmmm...I always wondered what the "P" stood for. ;O)

[annalex]

Calvin is an intriguing philosopher but he is a poor theologian. I made several posts on this thread regarding his attempts to read and understand the Scripture and I stand by them.

Calvin's attempt to cram his theological speculation of limited atonement into this context is nothing but fraud. It would be excusable to skim 1 Timothy 2:1-5 alone, discover that it is talking about kings and hastily conclude that "all" means "men of all social class". But Calvin has just gone over the first chapter and commented (feebly but lengthily) on Hymeneus and Alexander. He saw the context. He just wants to lead us away from it.

2679

I took on myself to read about 2/3 of BOOK 3, CHAPTER 2 of the Institutes.

The subject there is difficult for Calvin, since faith, hope and charity fit into the double predestination theory like square pegs in round holes. The pattern of his discourse is familiar: he starts with the theory and explains it in his own monotone, oversized paragraphs. Toward the end a scripture or two is thrown in, usually unrelated or loosely related to the theory. On occasion, stuff is bent by sheer exegetical fiat, for example, in 9 we learn that when St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians that faith is nothing without charity, it is, somehow, not faith he is talking about.

4320

first the strawman is fought with great fanfare, then the real stumbling block is mentioned in passing, inaccurately (what "application"?) and briefly, and dismissed sloppily

4370

[annalex]

book of Hebrews

There is nothing in the book of Hebrews that contradicts the institution of the Holy Mass, if that is what you are inferring.

[1000 silverlings]

Yes there is and it has been pointed out to you.

[AlbionGirl]

"however I doubt very seriously if there was any man before him or after him who had a more thorough and singular understanding of scripture."

I agree, PM.

Even when calling him a heretic, this is the best or worst (depending on your point of view) that was distilled:

“The strength of that heretic [Calvin] consisted in this, that money never had the slightest charm for him. If I had such servants my dominion would extend from sea to sea.”

The way Calvin lived and died says a lot about the man. He knew his own shortcomings and he knew he was a sinner. But he loved the Lord, I have little doubt of that, and he tried to bring Him back from the suffusion He had been subjected to.

He sure did give it to the Roman heirarchy good and plenty and right between the eyes, but the heirarchy at the time was not a bunch of shrinking violets. They gave as good as they got, and then some. I've read this quote before, but the 'my dominion' thing resounds with an even more unnerving clang.

[annalex]

You pointed out that there is a single sacrifice of Christ that atones our sin, and the Catholic Church agrees with you on that score.

[P-Marlowe]

Calvin is an intriguing philosopher but he is a poor theologian. I made several posts on this thread regarding his attempts to read and understand the Scripture and I stand by them.

I can stand on my own record in showing where I believed that Calvin was in error and the idea of the limited atonement is one where I do find myself in disagreement. However no matter how you slice it, the atonement is ultimately limited by the FACT that people (apparently even nice people) will be rejected by Christ condemned for their sins and thrown into everlasting punishment.

Your dismissal of Calvin by way of insult does not dismiss his arguments. The fact remains that the whole idea of Purgatory is anathema to scripture. The work of Christ is diminished if anyone who is ultimately redeemed must suffer the punishment for their own sins. The fact of the matter is that if the atonement is applicable to you, then your sins have been forgiven. Who are you to insist that you suffer and be punished for your own sins when Christ paid the price?

[alamo boy]

If the sacrifice is made present then it AIN'T a memorial.

I don't kiss my wife in memory of her, cause she is there when I smooch her. I may kiss my departed mom in memory of her.

[alamo boy]

edit:

I may kiss my departed mom's picture in memory of her.

[annalex]

dismissal of Calvin by way of insult

I dismiss Calvin after reading him and not by way of insult, and I point out why he is not merely speculating but also bypasses the scripture he does not like. His reputation as a thoughtful theologian is baseless; he was obviously very effective but not because he cared much about the scripture. He was a skillful propagandist for certain para-Christian ideologies, the gross (and counter-scriptural) error of limited atonement first among them. As any propagandist he was, quite a bit, frothy at the mouth. I don't see why I should not respond to his vitriol by pointing out that that's what it is, naked vitriol.

The work of Christ is diminished if anyone who is ultimately redeemed must suffer the punishment for their own sins.

By that logic the work of Christ is also diminished by the any exercise of justice on earth.

[annalex]

That could be true in the case of a departed relative, but Christ is eternal, before and after all things, which makes His Real Presence at the Eucharist possible.

[HarleyD]

Calvin had this (among other things) to say about purgatory:

Of purgatory there is not one word in Scripture, and Augustine, who in this matter yields to custom, acknowledges that this opinion is supported by no passage of Scripture, unless it be the history concerning the oblation of Judas Maccabeus, although the fact of its not being canonical and of certain authority, both he himself confesses, and Jerome teaches, and universal consent; confirms. For the passage, which is wont to be cited, from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, he himself expounds otherwise, as all men of sense see it ought to be otherwise expounded, (1 Corinthians 3:13.) For as the words, wood, hay, and stubble, are metaphorical, so, without doubt, the word fire is used metaphorically for the trial of the Spirit, under which human doctrines perish, whereas divine truth is proved like gold. But though Augustine allowed himself, as I said, to be ruled by custom, so as not to deny a purgatory, (August. Ench. ad Laur. c. 68,) he does not venture to make any positive assertion with regard to it. Nay, he even speaks doubtingly, saying, that it is not incredible, and that its existence may be made a question. Besides, he is not at all consistent with himself; since, in another place, he teaches that souls, when they leave the world, meet with different receptions, the good enjoying delight, while the bad are tormented, (Idem, in eod. lib. cap. seq.;) and, moreover, that the rest which is given immediately after death, every one receives the moment he dies, provided he is worthy of it, (Homil. in Joan. 49.)

There you have it. Men (and women) of sense don't believe in it. ;O)

[annalex]

For as the words, wood, hay, and stubble, are metaphorical, so, without doubt, the word fire is used metaphorically

And? The doctrine does not in any way specify the form and duration of the purgatorial suffering. Another example of Papa Calvin triumphantly knocking down an open door.

[jo kus]

But what was the heresy that promopted that definition?

In both cases (grace and purgatory), the Protestants were the heretics the Church was fighting. In the former, they went too far, the opposite of Pelagianism, saying man was totally corrupt. And in the later, they completely refused the Church's constant belief in a third state of existence after death.

It never occurred to me that you were. :)

That's good. I don't want to give a false impression there!

Regards

[jo kus]

Because they think they know more about what's best for them, would rather do it themselves and are more comfortable out of the presence of the Holy One. Take your pick.

I would agree - but Mr. Marlowe stated that Christ's redemption freed EVERYONE from sin - and thus, the punishment of sin is abrogated if forgiveness is given to all men without any conditions. According to such a scenario, no one would be in hell...

Regards

[alamo boy]

The point is I do not kiss my wife in memory of her. CAUSE SHE'S THERE and the act is PRESENT.

[jo kus]

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. (Matthew 23:9-10 KJV)

Taken out of context, of course. Paul said he was the spiritual father of his communities, if I recall. I guess he didn't see Christ's words in the way you seem to apply them.

Regards

[jo kus]

If this were believed the (supposed)daily crucifixtion of the Lord would have to cease.

What are you talking about? Christ died one time. Where is He crucified "again"?

Regards

[HarleyD]

Oh, pleazzzze... What utter nonsense and a thinly veiled attempt to get you out of the quarmire you've gotten yourself into with purgatory. Would you like to quote Calvin on some of those topics, such as:

Therefore, we must cry out with the shouting not only of our voices but of our throats and lungs that purgatory is a deadly fiction of Satan, which nullifies the cross of Christ inflicts unbearable contempt upon God’s mercy, and overturns and destroys our faith.

Hence, when the notion of satisfaction is destroyed, purgatory itself is straightway torn up by the very roots, but if it is perfectly clear from our preceding discourse that the blood of Christ is the sole satisfaction for the sins of believers, the sole expiation, the sole purgation, what remains but to say that purgatory is simply a dreadful blasphemy against Christ? I pass over the sacrileges by which it is daily defended, the minor offenses that it breeds in religion, and innumerable other things that we see have come forth from such a fountain of impiety.

Accordingly, anyone who fouls the golden purity of God’s Word with this filth of purgatory must undergo the loss of his work. [sic: That's a gem]

There are no speculations in Calvin's commentaries. In fact, if Calvin has been criticized for anything, it is because he was too perfect and the Reformed view too concise. You can go to just about any anti-Calvin website and read this criticism. I did.

The problem for you is that much of Catholic doctrine is pure speculation built with sticks and mud over a fault line of time. Errors compiled upon errors doomed to the seismic shifts of time until the Church is left in a position of contradicting itself time and again. There is no better example of this then this thread which has left many of us Protestants dumbfounded.