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

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

[kosta50]

How do you interpret away all of these verses?

Now you are asking good questions. My simple synopsis is that unless you can find love and mercy, you are not on target. Jesus redefines OT verses (Mat 5:38-39). Why? Because the Jews, the people to whom God has revealed Himself, have not interpreted His covenant correctly (Heb 8:7). One does not defeat evil with evil. Instead, He teaches that which goes against our fabric of justice and guts -- to pray for our enemies, for God has inscribed the knowledge of Himself in their hearts as well -- so that they may see the light of God and be saved.

God's love is the same, but those who hate God experience it as wrath. Those who love God experience His love as soothing and lfe-giving; those who hate Him as fires and torture. God is Life, for we exist only because of Him, but those who reject Him surely die. God gives us blessings and opportunities to become Christ-like but if we refuse, which we are free to do, we shall condemn ourselves. Love does not impose itself. God will not "force" us to love Him. God is not the boogie man who wants to tear us to pieces, but a Loving Father Who wants to save us all.

More importantly, the only way we can come to God is through love. The greater our love for God and for humanity, the more Christ-like we become! But very few really love God. Many more fear Him because they know that we are ungrateful to Him all the time. They believe because they figure if they can't beat Him they better join him!Fear is not love. Only those who don't love God (even if they claim they do) fear God. Those who love Him have no fear -- they simply submit to "Thy will be done" knowing that whatever happens will be merciful and just.

God is your friend and Christ taught us that we need to love God with all our hearts and minds and soul, and our neighbors as ourselves (Mat 22:37). Those are his commandments and that is all you need to live by.

[AlbionGirl]

Make them keep coming back to the professionals to insure their salvation rather than the freedom of seeking it and finding it personally by faith through the Word of God.

That really hit home. The professionals engender a tyranny of false compunction that can paralyze.

When light finally breaks and people can understand for themselves their inheritance, surely there will be excesses, but there will also be be truth that saves and empowers them to be the stewards of the promises given to them and to those they are responsible for. The church was never meant for the professionals. It was meant for the people to personally know their God and in knowing to do great deeds.

That also hit home. Beautifully put.

[Forest Keeper]

From the power of death over us.

Is this different from sin? I always thought that the Father sent the Son because He cared enough about something to make the effort. But, you said that God was indifferent to sin.

"God became man so that men might become gods", in other words, so that we might attain theosis which is our created purpose.

I must admit that I am completely unfamiliar with this idea. We are to become gods? Is there any Biblical support for us becoming gods?

[kosta50]

I don't think it bears more than a purely historical interest, who of the leaders of the reformed communities thought what

Oh, I fully agree...the dropping of a computer analogy is perfect. That's why I "lump" Christians into two groups -- the Apostolic community and the other. Anything outside the Apostolic Churches pretty much satisfies "a quandary for the curious mind, but that knowledge is not going to fix" anything.

Our Churches have a providential chance of reuniting one day, but others, well that may require a miracle! :-)

Your quote from 2 Peter is the crucial element of truth about Bible-only based so-called churches. The Bible was not readily available for almost 2,000 years and the majority of the population could not read way into the 20th century, let alone understand the Bible in context in which it was written. Clearly, God'splan was was not every-man-is-his-own-pope idea and a proliferation of private interpretations.

The Fathers kept accurate records which show us how the Church phronema worked in context of the times when the Apostles still walked the earth. As Kolokotronis observed: chances are that they knew better than some Germans 1,500 years later.

[kosta50]

I must admit that I am completely unfamiliar with this idea

God is simply helping us become restored to our original state, the way we were created. Those who turn to God stand a chance. Those who don't -- well, they will never be restored. He is doing that not because He needs us, or because he is "lonely" (God is one but He is not alone), or because we "earned it," but simply because He loves us. Sin does not affect Him, you can be sure of that.

[Forest Keeper]

Many more fear Him because they know that we are ungrateful to Him all the time. They believe because they figure if they can't beat Him they better join him!Fear is not love. Only those who don't love God (even if they claim they do) fear God. Those who love Him have no fear -- they simply submit to "Thy will be done" knowing that whatever happens will be merciful and just.

I see fear very differently. John the Baptist preached it. To me, fear of the Lord is an appreciation of the greatness of the power of God. Therefore, to understand God better is to fear him more. Next to Him, we are bugs, beloved bugs, but bugs. I see the Biblical use of the concept as a good thing and not inconsistent with love at all.

[Kolokotronis]

"From the power of death over us.

Is this different from sin? I always thought that the Father sent the Son because He cared enough about something to make the effort. But, you said that God was indifferent to sin."

Quite different. Death, both physical and spiritual, entered the world along with the sin of Adam because on account of that sin, we were, until the Incarnation, utterly incapable of fulfilling our created purpose. Death had dominion over us. We could not become "like gods", attain theosis, and after physical death were separated from God and remained in the place of the dead. My tag line says it all. Its from the Pascal Sermon of +John Chrysostom. And of course God cared enough about His creation to make the effort. God loves us.

"I must admit that I am completely unfamiliar with this idea. We are to become gods? Is there any Biblical support for us becoming gods?"

Absolutely! Read "On the Incarnation" by +Athanasius the Great. The link is below and the work is replete with scripture. He wrote it about 318, before even the 1st Ecumenical Council.


"http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-16.htm"

[Kolokotronis]

"I say that those who are suffering in hell, are suffering in being scourged by love. It is totally false to think that the sinners in hell are deprived of God's love. Love is a child of the knowledge of truth, and is unquestionably given commonly to all. But love's power acts in two ways: it torments sinners, while at the same time it delights those who have lived in accord with it." +Isaac the Syrian, Homily 84

[Kolokotronis]

"We don't know what they did after the councils. What we do know is the church lost its vitality and for the next 800 years or so nothing of significance came out of the church which is indicative of institutionalization."

Where does this idea come from?!!!!!!!! Some of the greatest theology in The Church developed after the 7th Ecumenical Council and before the Great Schism, even after the Great Schism. I don't want to waste the bandwidth to outline here what the great theologians of the East, and for that matter the West, wrote after that council but I assure you, The Church was anything but moribund!

I suspect that you are unfamiliar with the Eastern Fathers and like most Protestants believe that after the era of the Ecumenical Councils there was only what one now calls the Roman Catholic Church and against which your people revolted. That simply isn't true. The Church in the East has been around since Pentecost. Its history is quite different from that of The Church in the West, as one might expect. You may be interested to know that as late as the 14th century Eastern hierarchs were complaining that they couldn't go to the baker's or the shoemaker's without having to engage in a discussion of the nature of Christ or of the Trinity.

But in the East the civil/social system was different from that in the West. The Church never became a temporal power as circumstances forced on The Church in the West. When the peasants of the West were benighted grovelers scratching out an existence on some lord's manorial, feudal estate, in the East we had a glittering, educated, cosmopolitan Empire and even in the border lands, that civilization was looked to as the standard. We were the Roman Empire then, complete with an emperor. The Church could be The Church and the Empire the Empire. In the West it was feudalism with the Pope of Rome, by default, serving as the "emperor" simply to try to hold things together. Even at that, the Western Church never became moribund. Look at the light of Christianity in the British Isles up to the Norman Invasion! There are few, if any, greater beacons of Christianity than that found there in those times. Monasticism there was the equal to that found in the Desert before the Mohammedan Conquest. Not vibrant indeed!

[Kolokotronis]

"Next to Him, we are bugs, beloved bugs, but bugs."

No we're not. We are, as the Fathers say, a marvel of the angels. But there is no comparison between us as finite created beings and our ineffable and transcendant Triune God. This is no denial of the fact that Adam and Eve were created in the image and likeness of God. Even after the Fall, they retained the image of God, but lost His "likeness". Through the Incarnation we are again able to attain theosis, which is the fullness of the "likeness" of God wherein we share in God's uncreated energies, though not, of course in His essence.

[blue-duncan]

Here is what the Lord said to Peter when he was caught fishing rather than being about his Father's business:

Jhn 21:21 "Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what [shall] this man [do]? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee? follow thou me."

He told Peter that it was none of his business what the Lord had in store for John. His business was to follow Christ. After his hypocrisy in Galatia and his brief statement at the Jerusalem Council we don't hear anything about Peter except as an illustration in the first letter to Corinth and his two letters.

Prophecy is not of private interpretation, that is why the Holy Spirit came and leads each believer into all truth. It's not what I think but what the scripture says. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

[redgolum]

Theosis is one of those things that I have yet to grasp in the Eastern Orthodox theology. Haven't read enough to get it right yet.

Forgive me Campion if I am wrong, but in the West that expression typically has to do with being united with the will of God. We don't really become God, but become perfect instruments for Him.

And Kolo, I picked up a Pelakin book with one of my gift cards. Thanks for the heads up!

[redgolum]

Just got back from Christmas, so I am a bit late in this thread. Seems interesting.

[HarleyD]

HD-"How do you know that what is touted as Church doctrine today won't be changed 50 years from now?"

Kolo-"Easy, Orthodoxy hasn't changed its doctrine and dogmas since the 7th Ecumenical Council."

The 7th Ecumenical Council met to refute iconoclasm (veneration of idols). Are you saying this was a change in Church doctrine?

The Fathers constantly referred to each others writings, Harley.

Yes the fathers referred to each others writings-sometimes pleasant, sometimes not so. They didn't referred to them as inspired. John Cassian who the Eastern Orthodox revere was looked upon as a heretic in the west. I doubt if you'll find many of the early western church fathers referring to his writings.

[HarleyD]

Well, if you insist on being anthropomorphic about it, yes, He is indifferent [to sin].

Tsk, tsk Kolo to make such a statement. If this was so there was no reason for the death of His Son, no need for the fire and brimstone of Sodom, and certainly no need for flooding the earth. This is not the God of scripture.

[kosta50]

To me, fear of the Lord is an appreciation of the greatness of the power of God

Of course, owe and reverence, but the west also sees a vengful and angry God. That is most unfortunate.

[HarleyD]

Erasmus was a Renaissance rationalist who placed reason above Scripture. Therefore the truth of Scripture was not that important to him.

Historically most of those in the Church were Renaissance rationalists. I believe the author is correct in his assertion and this is even verified by the Catholic website newadvent.com. Below is a very small excerpt about the life of Erasmus.

It is a kind of textbook for the study of the Latin language, and introduction to the purely natural formal training of the mind, and a typical example of the frivolous Renaissance spirit. The defects of ecclesiastical and monastic life are in this work held up to pitiless scorn; moreover, he descends only too often to indecent and cynical descriptions. His edition of the Greek original of the New Testament, "Novum Instrumentum omne" (Basle, 1516), no model of text-critical scholarship, was accompanied by a classical Latin translation destined to replace the Vulgate. Among the notes, partly textual criticism, partly exegetical comments, were inserted sarcastic slurs on the ecclesiastical conditions of the period. In a general introduction he discussed the importance of the Scriptures and the best method of studying them. Although the Complutensian edition offered a better text and was also printed, but not published, at an earlier date, yet the edition of Erasmus remained for a long time authoritative on account of his high reputation, and became the basis of the textus receptus or received text. No less instrumental in preparing the way for the future Reformation, by setting aside the scholastic method and undermining the traditional authority of the Scriptures, were the "Paraphrases of the New Testament" (1517 and later).

[Kolokotronis]

" The 7th Ecumenical Council met to refute iconoclasm (veneration of idols). Are you saying this was a change in Church doctrine?"

No, not at all. The Councils defined dogma which had a tendency to "change" erroneus beliefs.

"Yes the fathers referred to each others writings-sometimes pleasant, sometimes not so. They didn't referred to them as inspired."

I know some Latin Church authors have said this sort of thing. I disgree but then again it may be that the word "inspired" is being limited to scripture and in that usage I agree with what you have written. The Fathers didn't write scripture.

"John Cassian who the Eastern Orthodox revere was looked upon as a heretic in the west. I doubt if you'll find many of the early western church fathers referring to his writings."

Actually he was revered in the West by many, including at least three popes and is quoted by a number of Western Fathers concerning his thoughts on iconoclasm. He was never formally canonized a saint by the Western Church but his feast day is celebrated around Marseilles to this day. What we was accused of was Semipelagianism, that boogeyman of the West. He was a disciple of +John Chrysostomos.

[blue-duncan]

"Monasticism there was the equal to that found in the Desert before the Mohammedan Conquest. Not vibrant indeed!"

Please explain how monasticism can be said to be vibrant when it spiritually benefited only the few while keeping the people in ignorance and superstition. It was able to protect the scriptures from the Muslim hoards but it did little to increase the literacy of the common folk so they could read the scriptures for themselves. It can be argued that there weren't the complete scriptures available but there certainly could have been portions of scriptures posted in public places for the people to read just as the laws of the realm were posted. The problem was the professionals did not trust the common folk with the Word of God or the promise that the Holy Spirit would lead them into the truth that would set them free from their sin.

[HarleyD]

The article itself is edifying, but the ensuing debate is equally edifying.

What is interesting is the "Protestants" who are missing. A careful reading of this article illustrate how much Protestants today embrace Roman doctrine.