Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal ^ | April 1999 | Garrett J. Eriks

Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD

Introduction

At the time of the Reformation, many hoped Martin Luther and Erasmus could unite against the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. Luther himself was tempted to unite with Erasmus because Erasmus was a great Renaissance scholar who studied the classics and the Greek New Testament. Examining the Roman Catholic Church, Erasmus was infuriated with the abuses in the Roman Catholic Church, especially those of the clergy. These abuses are vividly described in the satire of his book, The Praise of Folly. Erasmus called for reform in the Roman Catholic Church. Erasmus could have been a great help to the Reformation, so it seemed, by using the Renaissance in the service of the Reformation.

But a great chasm separated these two men. Luther loved the truth of God's Word as that was revealed to him through his own struggles with the assurance of salvation. Therefore Luther wanted true reformation in the church, which would be a reformation in doctrine and practice. Erasmus cared little about a right knowledge of truth. He simply wanted moral reform in the Roman Catholic Church. He did not want to leave the church, but remained supportive of the Pope.

This fundamental difference points out another difference between the two men. Martin Luther was bound by the Word of God. Therefore the content of the Scripture was of utmost importance to him. But Erasmus did not hold to this same high view of Scripture. Erasmus was a Renaissance rationalist who placed reason above Scripture. Therefore the truth of Scripture was not that important to him.

The two men could not have fellowship with each other, for the two movements which they represented were antithetical to each other. The fundamental differences came out especially in the debate over the freedom of the will.

From 1517 on, the chasm between Luther and Erasmus grew. The more Luther learned about Erasmus, the less he wanted anything to do with him. Melanchthon tried to play the mediator between Luther and Erasmus with no success. But many hated Erasmus because he was so outspoken against the church. These haters of Erasmus tried to discredit him by associating him with Luther, who was outside the church by this time. Erasmus continued to deny this unity, saying he did not know much about the writings of Luther. But as Luther took a stronger stand against the doctrinal abuses of Rome, Erasmus was forced either to agree with Luther or to dissociate himself from Luther. Erasmus chose the latter.

Many factors came together which finally caused Erasmus to wield his pen against Luther. Erasmus was under constant pressure from the Pope and later the king of England to refute the views of Luther. When Luther became more outspoken against Erasmus, Erasmus finally decided to write against him. On September 1, 1524, Erasmus published his treatise On the Freedom of the Will. In December of 1525, Luther responded with The Bondage of the Will.

Packer and Johnston call The Bondage of the Will "the greatest piece of theological writing that ever came from Luther's pen."1 Although Erasmus writes with eloquence, his writing cannot compare with that of Luther the theologian. Erasmus writes as one who cares little about the subject, while Luther writes with passion and conviction, giving glory to God. In his work, Luther defends the heart of the gospel over against the Pelagian error as defended by Erasmus. This controversy is of utmost importance.

In this paper, I will summarize both sides of the controversy, looking at what each taught and defended. Secondly, I will examine the biblical approach of each man. Finally, the main issues will be pointed out and the implications of the controversy will be drawn out for the church today.

Erasmus On the Freedom of the Will

Erasmus defines free-will or free choice as "a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to the things which lead to eternal salvation or turn away from them." By this, Erasmus means that man has voluntary or free power of himself to choose the way which leads to salvation apart from the grace of God.

Erasmus attempts to answer the question how man is saved: Is it the work of God or the work of man according to his free will? Erasmus answers that it is not one or the other. Salvation does not have to be one or the other, for God and man cooperate. On the one hand, Erasmus defines free-will, saying man can choose freely by himself, but on the other hand, he wants to retain the necessity of grace for salvation. Those who do good works by free-will do not attain the end they desire unless aided by God's grace. Therefore, in regard to salvation, man cooperates with God. Both must play their part in order for a man to be saved. Erasmus expresses it this way: "Those who support free choice nonetheless admit that a soul which is obstinate in evil cannot be softened into true repentance without the help of heavenly grace." Also, attributing all things to divine grace, Erasmus states,

And the upshot of it is that we should not arrogate anything to ourselves but attribute all things we have received to divine grace … that our will might be synergos (fellow-worker) with grace although grace is itself sufficient for all things and has no need of the assistance of any human will."

In his work On the Freedom of the Will, Erasmus defends this synergistic view of salvation. According to Erasmus, God and man, nature and grace, cooperate together in the salvation of a man. With this view of salvation, Erasmus tries to steer clear of outright Pelagianism and denies the necessity of human action which Martin Luther defends.

On the basis of an apocryphal passage (Ecclesiasticas 15:14-17), Erasmus begins his defense with the origin of free-will. Erasmus says that Adam, as he was created, had a free-will to choose good or to turn to evil. In Paradise, man's will was free and upright to choose. Adam did not depend upon the grace of God, but chose to do all things voluntarily. The question which follows is, "What happened to the will when Adam sinned; does man still retain this free-will?" Erasmus would answer, "Yes." Erasmus says that the will is born out of a man's reason. In the fall, man's reason was obscured but was not extinguished. Therefore the will, by which we choose, is depraved so that it cannot change its ways. The will serves sin. But this is qualified. Man's ability to choose freely or voluntarily is not hindered.

By this depravity of the will, Erasmus does not mean that man can do no good. Because of the fall, the will is "inclined" to evil, but can still do good. Notice, he says the will is only "inclined" to evil. Therefore the will can freely or voluntarily choose between good and evil. This is what he says in his definition: free-will is "a power of the human will by which a man can apply himself to the things which lead to eternal salvation." Not only does the human will have power, although a little power, but the will has power by which a man merits salvation.

This free choice of man is necessary according to Erasmus in order for there to be sin. In order for a man to be guilty of sin, he must be able to know the difference between good and evil, and he must be able to choose between doing good and doing evil. A man is responsible only if he has the ability to choose good or evil. If the free-will of man is taken away, Erasmus says that man ceases to be a man.

For this freedom of the will, Erasmus claims to find much support in Scripture. According to Erasmus, when Scripture speaks of "choosing," it implies that man can freely choose. Also, whenever the Scripture uses commands, threats, exhortations, blessings, and cursings, it follows that man is capable of choosing whether or not he will obey.

Erasmus defines the work of man's will by which he can freely choose after the fall. Here he makes distinctions in his idea of a "threefold kind of law" which is made up of the "law of nature, law of works, and law of faith." First, this law of nature is in all men. By this law of nature, men do good by doing to others what they would want others to do to them. Having this law of nature, all men have a knowledge of God. By this law of nature, the will can choose good, but the will in this condition is useless for salvation. Therefore more is needed. The law of works is man's choice when he hears the threats of punishment which God gives. When a man hears these threats, he either continues to forsake God, or he desires God's grace. When a man desires God's grace, he then receives the law of faith which cures the sinful inclinations of his reason. A man has this law of faith only by divine grace.

In connection with this threefold kind of law, Erasmus distinguishes between three graces of God. First, in all men, even in those who remain in sin, a grace is implanted by God. But this grace is infected by sin. This grace arouses men by a certain knowledge of God to seek Him. The second grace is peculiar grace which arouses the sinner to repent. This does not involve the abolishing of sin or justification. But rather, a man becomes "a candidate for the highest grace." By this grace offered to all men, God invites all, and the sinner must come desiring God's grace. This grace helps the will to desire God. The final grace is the concluding grace which completes what was started. This is saving grace only for those who come by their free-will. Man begins on the path to salvation, after which God completes what man started. Along with man's natural abilities according to his will, God works by His grace. This is the synergos, or cooperation, which Erasmus defends.

Erasmus defends the free-will of man with a view to meriting salvation. This brings us to the heart of the matter. Erasmus begins with the premise that a man merits salvation. In order for a man to merit salvation, he cannot be completely carried by God, but he must have a free-will by which he chooses God voluntarily. Therefore, Erasmus concludes that by the exercise of his free-will, man merits salvation with God. When man obeys, God imputes this to his merit. Therefore Erasmus says, "This surely goes to show that it is not wrong to say that man does something…." Concerning the merit of man's works, Erasmus distinguishes with the Scholastics between congruent and condign merit. The former is that which a man performs by his own strength, making him a "fit subject for the gift of internal grace." This work of man removed the barrier which keeps God from giving grace. The barrier removed is man's unworthiness for grace, which God gives only to those who are fit for it. With the gift of grace, man can do works which before he could not do. God rewards these gifts with salvation. Therefore, with the help or aid of the grace of God, a man merits eternal salvation.

Although he says a man merits salvation, Erasmus wants to say that salvation is by God's grace. In order to hold both the free-will of man and the grace of God in salvation, Erasmus tries to show the two are not opposed to each other. He says, "It is not wrong to say that man does something yet attributes the sum of all he does to God as the author." Explaining the relationship between grace and free-will, Erasmus says that the grace of God and the free-will of man, as two causes, come together in one action "in such a way, however, that grace is the principle cause and the will secondary, which can do nothing apart from the principle cause since the principle is sufficient in itself." Therefore, in regard to salvation, God and man work together. Man has a free-will, but this will cannot attain salvation of itself. The will needs a boost from grace in order to merit eternal life.

Erasmus uses many pictures to describe the relationship between works and grace. He calls grace an "advisor," "helper," and "architect." Just as the builder of a house needs the architect to show him what to do and to set him straight when he does something wrong, so also man needs the assistance of God to help him where he is lacking. The free-will of man is aided by a necessary helper: grace. Therefore Erasmus says, "as we show a boy an apple and he runs for it ... so God knocks at our soul with His grace and we willingly embrace it." In this example, we are like a boy who cannot walk. The boy wants the apple, but he needs his father to assist him in obtaining the apple. So also, we need the assistance of God's grace. Man has a free-will by which he can seek after God, but this is not enough for him to merit salvation. By embracing God's grace with his free-will, man merits God's grace so that by his free-will and the help of God's grace he merits eternal life. This is a summary of what Erasmus defends.

Erasmus also deals with the relationship of God's foreknowledge and man's free-will. On the one hand, God does what he wills, but, on the other hand, God's will does not impose anything on man's will, for then man's will would not be free or voluntary. Therefore God's foreknowledge is not determinative, but He simply knows what man will choose. Men deserve punishment from eternity simply because God knows they will not choose the good, but will choose the evil. Man can resist the ordained will of God. The only thing man cannot resist is when God wills in miracles. When God performs some "supernatural" work, this cannot be resisted by men. For example, when Jesus performed a miracle, the man whose sight returned could not refuse to be healed. According to Erasmus, because man's will is free, God's will and foreknowledge depend on man's will except when He performs miracles.

This is a summary of what Erasmus taught in his treatise On the Freedom of the Will. In response to this treatise, Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will. We turn to this book of Luther.

Luther's Arguments Against Erasmus

Martin Luther gives a thorough defense of the sovereign grace of God over against the "semi-Pelagianism" of Erasmus by going through much of Erasmus' On the Freedom of the Will phrase by phrase. Against the cooperating work of salvation defended by Erasmus, Luther attacks Erasmus at the very heart of the issue. Luther's thesis is that "free-will is a nonentity, a thing consisting of name alone" because man is a slave to sin. Therefore salvation is the sovereign work of God alone.

In the "Diatribe," Luther says, Erasmus makes no sense. It seems Erasmus speaks out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, he says that man's will cannot will any good, yet on the other hand, he says man has a free-will. Other contradictions also exist in Erasmus' thought. Erasmus says that man has the power to choose good, but he also says that man needs grace to do good. Opposing Erasmus, Luther rightly points out that if there is free-will, there is no need for grace. Because of these contradictions in Erasmus, Luther says Erasmus "argues like a man drunk or asleep, blurting out between snores, 'Yes,' 'No.' " Not only does this view of Erasmus not make sense, but this is not what Scripture says concerning the will of man and the grace of God.

According to Luther, Erasmus does not prove his point, namely, the idea that man with his free-will cooperates in salvation with God. Throughout his work, Luther shows that Erasmus supports and agrees with the Pelagians. In fact, Erasmus' view is more despicable than Pelagianism because he is not honest and because the grace of God is cheapened. Only a small work is needed in order for a man to merit the grace of God.

Because Erasmus does not take up the question of what man can actually do of himself as fallen in Adam, Luther takes up the question of the ability of man. Here, Luther comes to the heart of his critique of the Diatribe in which he denies free-will and shows that God must be and is sovereign in salvation. Luther's arguments follow two lines: first, he shows that man is enslaved to sin and does not have a free-will; secondly, he shows that the truth of God's sovereign rule, by which He accomplishes His will according to His counsel, is opposed to free-will.

First, Luther successfully defends the thesis that there is no such entity as free-will because the will is enslaved to sin. Luther often says there is no such thing as free-will. The will of man without the grace of God "is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil since it cannot turn itself to good." The free-will lost its freedom in the fall so that now the will is a slave to sin. This means the will can will no good. Therefore man does and wills sin "necessarily." Luther further describes the condition of man's will when he explains a passage from Ezekiel: "It cannot but fall into a worse condition, and add to its sins despair and impenitence unless God comes straightway to its help and calls it back and raises it up by the word of His promise."

Luther makes a crucial distinction in explaining what he means when he says man sins "necessarily." This does not mean "compulsion." A man without the Spirit is not forced, kicking and screaming, to sin but voluntarily does evil. Nevertheless, because man is enslaved to sin, his will cannot change itself. He only wills or chooses to sin of himself. He cannot change this willingness of his: he wills and desires evil. Man is wholly evil, thinking nothing but evil thoughts. Therefore there is no free-will.

Because this is the condition of man, he cannot merit eternal life. The enslaved will cannot merit anything with God because it can do no good. The only thing which man deserves is eternal punishment. By this, Luther also shows that there is no free-will.

In connection with man's merit, Luther describes the true biblical uses of the law. The purpose of the law of God is not to show men how they can merit salvation, but the law is given so that men might see their sinfulness and their own unworthiness. The law condemns the works of man, for when he judges himself according to the law, man sees that he can do no good. Therefore, he is driven to the cross. The law also serves as a guide for what the believer should do. But the law does not say anything about the ability of man to obey it.

Not only should the idea of free-will be rejected because man is enslaved to sin, but also because of who God is and the relationship between God and man. A man cannot act independently of God. Analyzing what Erasmus said, Luther says that God is not God, but He is an idol, because the freedom of man rules. Everything depends on man for salvation. Therefore man can merit salvation apart from God. A God that depends on man is not God.

Denying this horrible view of Erasmus, Luther proclaims the sovereignty of God in salvation. Because God is sovereign in all things and especially in salvation, there is no free-will.

Luther begins with the fact that God alone has a free-will. This means only God can will or not will the law, gospel, sin, and death. God does not act out of necessity, but freely. He alone is independent in all He decrees and does. Therefore man cannot have a free-will by which he acts independently of God, because God is immutable, omnipotent, and sovereign over all. Luther says that God is omnipotent, knowing all. Therefore we do nothing of ourselves. We can only act according to God's infallible, immutable counsel.

The great error of free-willism is that it ascribes divinity to man's free-will. God is not God anymore. If man has a free-will, this implies God is not omnipotent, controlling all of our actions. Free-will also implies that God makes mistakes and changes. Man must then fix the mistakes. Over against this, Luther says there can be no free-will because we are under the "mastery of God." We can do nothing apart from God by our own strength because we are enslaved to sin.

Luther also understands the difficulties which follow from saying that God is sovereign so that all things happen necessarily. Luther states: "If God foreknows a thing, it necessarily happens." The problem between God's foreknowledge and man's freedom cannot be completely solved. God sovereignly decrees all things that happen, and they happen as He has decreed them necessarily. Does this mean that when a man sins, he sins because God has decreed that sin? Luther would answer, Yes. But God does not act contrary to what man is. Man cannot will good, but he only seeks after sinful lusts. The nature of man is corrupted, so that he is turned from God. But God works in men and in Satan according to what they are. The sinner is still under the control of the omnipotent God, "which means, since they are evil and perverted themselves, that when they are impelled to action by this movement of Divine omnipotence they do only that which is perverted or evil." When God works in evil men, evil results. But God is not evil. He is good. He does not do evil, but He uses evil instruments. The sin is the fault of those evil instruments and not the fault of God.

Luther asks himself the question, Why then did God let Adam fall so all men have his sin? The sovereignty of God must not be questioned, because God's will is beyond any earthly standard. Nothing is equal to God and His will. Answering the question above, Luther replies, "What God wills is not right because He ought or was bound, so to will, on the contrary, what takes place must be right because He so wills it." This is the hidden mystery of God's absolute sovereignty over all things.

God is sovereign over all things. He is sovereign in salvation. Is salvation a work of God and man? Luther answers negatively. God alone saves. Therefore salvation cannot be based on the merits of men's works. Man's obedience does not obtain salvation, according to Luther. Some become the sons of God "not by carnal birth, nor by zeal for the law, nor by any other human effort, but only by being born of God." Grace does not come by our own effort, but by the grace of Jesus Christ. To deny grace is to deny Jesus Christ. For Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Free-will says that it is the way, the truth, and the life. Therefore free-will denies Jesus Christ. This is a serious error.

God saves by His grace and Spirit in such away that the will is turned by Him. Only when the will is changed can it will and desire the good. Luther describes a struggle between God and Satan. Erasmus says man stands between God and Satan, who are as spectators waiting for man to make his choice. But Luther compares this struggle to a horse having two riders. "If God rides, it wills and goes where God goes…. If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan goes." The horse does not have the choice of which rider it wants. We have Satan riding us until God throws him off. In the same way, we are enslaved to sin until God breaks the power of sin. The salvation of a man depends upon the free work of God, who alone is sovereign and able to save men. Therefore this work in the will by God is a radical change whereby the willing of the soul is freed from sin. This beautiful truth stands over against Erasmus' grace, which gives man a booster shot in what he can do of himself.

This truth of the sovereignty of God in salvation is comforting to us. When man trusts in himself, he has no comfort that he is saved. Because man is enslaved to sin and because God is the sovereign, controlling all things according to His sovereign, immutable will, there is no free-will. The free-will of man does not save him. God alone saves.

The Battle of the Biblical Texts

The battle begins with the fundamental difference separating Luther and Erasmus in regard to the doctrine of Scripture. Erasmus defends the obscurity of Scripture. Basically, Erasmus says man cannot know with certainty many of the things in Scripture. Some things in God's Word are plain, while many are not. He applies the obscurity of Scripture to the controversy concerning the freedom of the will. In the camp of the hidden things of God, which include the hour of our death and when the last judgment will occur, Erasmus places "whether our will accomplishes anything in things pertaining to salvation." Because Scripture is unclear about these things, what one believes about these matters is not important. Erasmus did not want controversy, but he wanted peace. For him, the discussion of the hidden things is worthless because it causes the church to lose her love and unity.

Against this idea of the obscurity of Scripture, Luther defends the perspicuity of Scripture. Luther defines perspicuity as being twofold. The external word itself is clear, as that which God has written for His people. But man cannot understand this word of himself. Therefore Scripture is clear to God's people only by the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts.

The authority of Scripture is found in God Himself. God's Word must not be measured by man, for this leads to paradoxes, of which Erasmus is a case in point. By saying Scripture is paradoxical, Erasmus denies the authority of God's Word.

Luther does not deny that some passages are difficult to understand. This is not because the Word is unclear or because the work of the Holy Spirit is weak. Rather, we do not understand some passages because of our own weakness.

If Scripture is obscure, then this opposes what God is doing in revelation. Scripture is light which reveals the truth. If it is obscure, then why did God give it to us? According to Luther, not even the difficult to understand doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the unpardonable sin are obscure. Therefore the issue of the freedom of the will is not obscure. If the Scripture is unclear about the doctrine of the will of man, then this doctrine is not from Scripture.

Because Scripture is clear, Luther strongly attacks Erasmus on this fundamental point. Luther says, "The Scriptures are perfectly clear in their teaching, and that by their help such a defense of our position may be made that our adversaries cannot resist." This is what Luther hoped to show to Erasmus. The teaching of Scripture is fundamental. On this point of perspicuity, Luther has Erasmus by the horns. Erasmus says Scripture is not clear on this matter of the freedom of the will, yet he appeals to the church fathers for support. The church fathers base their doctrine of the free-will on Scripture. On the basis of the perspicuity of Scripture, Luther challenges Erasmus to find even one passage that supports his view of free-will. Luther emphasizes that not one can be found.

Luther also attacks Erasmus when he says what one believes concerning the freedom of the will does not matter. Luther sums up Erasmus' position this way: "In a word, what you say comes to this: that you do not think it matters a scrap what any one believes anywhere, as long as the world is at peace." Erasmus says the knowledge of free-will is useless and non-essential. Over against this, Luther says, "then neither God, Christ, Gospel, faith, nor anything else even of Judaism, let alone Christianity, is left!" Positively, Luther says about the importance of the truth: "I hold that a solemn and vital truth, of eternal consequences, is at stake in the discussion." Luther was willing to defend the truth even to death because of its importance as that which is taught in Scripture.

A word must also be said about the differing views of the interpretation of Scripture. Erasmus was not an exegete. He was a great scholar of the languages, but this did not make him an able exegete. Erasmus does not rely on the Word of God of itself, but he turns to the church fathers and to reason for the interpretation of Scripture. In regard to the passage out of Ecclesiasticas which Erasmus uses, Luther says the dispute there is not over the teaching of Scripture, but over human reason. Erasmus generalizes from a particular case, saying that since a passage mentions willing, this must mean a man has a free-will. In this regard, Luther also says that Erasmus "fashions and refashions the words of God as he pleases." Erasmus was concerned not with what God says in His Word, but with what he wanted God to say.

Not only does Erasmus use his own reason to interpret Scripture, but following in the Roman Catholic tradition he goes back to the church fathers. His work is filled with many quotes from the church fathers' interpretation of different passages. The idea is that the church alone has the authority to interpret Scripture. Erasmus goes so far in this that Luther accuses Erasmus of placing the fathers above the inspired apostle Paul.

In contrast to Erasmus, Luther interprets Scripture with Scripture. Seeing the Word of God as inspired by the Holy Spirit, Luther also trusts in the work of the Holy Spirit to interpret that Word. One of the fundamental points of Reformed hermeneutics is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Luther follows this. When Luther deals with a passage, he does not take it out of context as Erasmus does. Instead, he examines the context and checks other passages which use the same words.

Also, Luther does not add figures or devise implications as Erasmus does. But rather, Luther sticks to the simple and plain meaning of Scripture. He says, "Everywhere we should stick to just the simple, natural meaning of the words, as yielded by the rules of grammar and the habits of speech that God has created among men." In the controversy over the bondage of the will, both the formal and material principles of the Reformation were at stake.

Now we must examine some of the important passages for each man. This is a difficult task because they both refer to so many passages. We must content ourselves with looking at those which are fundamental for the main points of the controversy.

Showing the weakness of his view of Scripture, Erasmus begins with a passage from an apocryphal book: Ecclesiasticas 15:14-17. Erasmus uses this passage to show the origin of the free will and that the will continues to be free after the fall.

Following this passage, Erasmus looks at many passages from the Old Testament to prove that man has a free-will. He turns to Genesis 4:6, 7, which records God speaking to Cain after he offered his displeasing sacrifice to God. Verse 7 says, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." Erasmus says that God sets before Cain a reward if he chooses the good. But if he chooses the evil, he will be punished. This implies that Cain has a will which can overcome evil and do the good.

From here, Erasmus looks at different passages using the word "choose." He says Scripture uses the word "choose" because man can freely choose. This is the only way it makes sense.

Erasmus also looks at many passages which use the word "if" in the Old Testament and also the commands of the Old Testament. For example, Isaiah 1:19,20 and 21:12 use the words "if … then." These conditions in Scripture imply that a man can do these things. Deuteronomy 30:14 is an example of a command. In this passage, Israel is commanded to love God with all their heart and soul. This command was given because Moses and the people had it in them to obey. Erasmus comes to these conclusions by implication.

Using a plethora of New Testament texts, Erasmus tries to support the idea of the freedom of the will. Once again, Erasmus appeals to those texts which speak of conditions. John 14:15 says, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Also, in John 15:7 we read, "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." These passages imply that man is able to fulfill the conditions by his free-will.

Remarkably, Erasmus identifies Paul as "the champion of free choice." Referring to passages in which Paul exhorts and commands, Erasmus says that this implies the ability to obey. An example is I Corinthians 9:24,25: "Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible." Man is able to obey this command because he has a free-will.

These texts can be placed together because Luther responds to them as a whole. Luther does treat many of these texts separately, but often comes back to the same point. Luther's response to Genesis 4:7 applies to all of the commands and conditions to which Erasmus refers: "Man is shown, not what he can do, but what he ought to do." Similarly, Luther responds to Deuteronomy 30:19: "It is from this passage that I derive my answer to you: that by the words of the law man is admonished and taught, not what he can do, but what he ought to do; that is, that he may know sin, not that he may believe that he has any strength." The exhortations and commands of the New Testament given through the apostle Paul are not written to show what we can do, but rather, after the gospel is preached, they encourage those justified and saved to live in the Spirit.

From these passages, Erasmus also taught that man merited salvation by his obedience or a man merited punishment by his disobedience, all of which was based on man's ability according to his free-will. Erasmus jumps from reward to merit. He does this in the conditional phrases of Scripture especially. But Luther says that merit is not proved from reward. God uses rewards in Scripture to exhort us and threaten us so that the godly persevere. Rewards are not that which a man merits.

The heart of the battle of the biblical texts is found in their treatment of passages from the book of Romans, especially Romans 9. Here, Erasmus treats Romans 9 as a passage which seems to oppose the freedom of the will but does not.

Erasmus begins his treatment of Romans 9 by considering the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. He treats this in connection with what Romans 9:18 says, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he hardeneth." To interpret this passage, Erasmus turns to Jerome, who says, "God hardens when he does not at once punish the sinner and has mercy as soon as he invites repentance by means of afflictions." God's hardening and mercy are the results of what man does. God has mercy "on those who recognize the goodness of God and repent…." Also, this hardening is not something which God does, but something which Pharaoh did by not repenting. God was longsuffering to Pharaoh, not punishing him immediately, during which Pharaoh hardened his heart. God simply gave the occasion for the hardening of his heart. Therefore the blame can be placed on Pharaoh.

Although Erasmus claims to take the literal meaning of the passage, Luther is outraged at this interpretation. Luther objects:

Showing the absurdity of what Erasmus says, Luther says that this view means that God shows mercy when He sends Israel into captivity because then they are invited to repent; but when Israel is brought back from captivity, He hardens them by giving them the opportunity of hardening in His longsuffering. This is "topsy-turvy."

Positively, Luther explains this hardening of the heart of Pharaoh. God does this, therefore Pharaoh's heart is necessarily hardened. But God does not do something which is opposed to the nature of Pharaoh. Pharoah is enslaved to sin. When he hears the word of God through Moses which irritates his evil will, Pharaoh's heart is hardened. Luther explains it this way:

In his consideration of Jacob and Esau in Romans 9, Erasmus denies that this passage speaks of predestination. Erasmus says God does not hate anybody from eternity. But God's wrath and fury against sin are revealed on Esau because He knows the sins he will commit. In this connection, when Romans 9 speaks of God as the potter making a vessel of honor and dishonor, Erasmus says that God does this because of their belief and unbelief. Erasmus is trying to deny the necessity of the fulfillment of God's decree in order to support the freedom of the will.

Once again, Luther objects. Luther defends the necessity of consequence to what God decrees. Luther says, "If God foreknows a thing, it necessarily takes place." Therefore, in regard to Jacob and Esau, they did not attain their positions by their own free-will. Romans 9 emphasizes that they were not yet born and that they had not yet done good or evil. Without any works of obedience or disobedience, the one was master and the other was the servant. Jacob was rewarded not on the basis of anything he had done. Jacob was loved and Esau was hated even before the world began. Jacob loved God because God loved him. Therefore the source of salvation is not the free-will of man, but God's eternal decree. Paul is not the great champion of the freedom of the will.

In defense of the literal meaning of Romans 9:21-23, Luther shows that these verses oppose free-will as well. Luther examines the passage in the context of what Paul is saying. The emphasis in the earlier verses is not man, but what God does. He is sovereign in salvation. Here also, the emphasis is the potter. God is sovereign, almighty, and free. Man is enslaved to sin and acts out of necessity according to all God decrees. Luther shows that this is the emphasis of Romans 9 with sound exegetical work.

After refuting the texts to which Erasmus refers, Luther continues to show that Scripture denies the freedom of the will and teaches the sovereignty of God in salvation. He begins with Romans 1:18 which says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness." Luther says this means all men are ungodly and are unrighteous. Therefore, all deserve the wrath of God. The best a man can do is evil. Referring to Romans 3:9, Luther proves the same thing. Both Jews and Greeks are all under sin. They will and do nothing but evil. Man has no power to seek after good because there is none that doeth good (Ps. 14:3). Therefore, men are "ignorant of and despise God! Here is unbelief, disobedience, sacrilege, blasphemy towards God, cruelty and mercilessness towards one's neighbors and love of self in all things of God and man." Luther's conclusion to the matter is this: man is enslaved to sin.

Man cannot obtain salvation by his works. Romans 3:20 says that by the works of the law no man can be justified in God's sight. It is impossible for a man to merit salvation by his works. Salvation must be the sovereign work of God.

Luther thunders against free-will in connection with Romans 3:21-16 which proclaims salvation by grace alone through faith.58 Free-will is opposed to faith. These are two different ways of salvation. Luther shows that a man cannot be saved by his works, therefore it must be by faith in Jesus Christ. Justification is free, of grace, and without works because man possesses no worthiness for it.

Finally, we notice that Luther points out the comprehensive terms of the apostle Paul to show that there is no free-will in man. All are sinners. There is none that is righteous, and none that doeth good. Paul uses many others also. Therefore, justification and salvation are without works and without the law.

Over against the idea of free-will stands the clear teaching of Scripture. Luther clearly exegetes God's Word to show this. In summary, the truth of predestination denies the free-will of man. Because salvation is by grace and faith, salvation is not by works. Faith and grace are of no avail if salvation is by the works of man. Also, the only thing the law works is wrath. The law displays the unworthiness, sinfulness, and guilt of man. As children of Adam we can do no good. Luther argues along these lines to show that a free-will does not exist in man. Salvation is by grace alone.

The Main Issues and Implications of Each View

Luther is not interested in abstract theological concepts. He does not take up this debate with Erasmus on a purely intellectual level. The main issue is salvation: how does God save? Luther himself defines the issue on which the debate hinges:

So it is not irreligious, idle, or superfluous, but in the highest degree wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know whether or not his will has anything to do in matters pertaining to salvation…. This is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us.

Luther finds it necessary to investigate from Scripture what ability the will of man has and how this is related to God and His grace. If one does not know this, he does not know Christianity. Luther brings this against Erasmus because he shows no interest in the truth regarding how it is that some are saved.

Although the broad issue of the debate is how God saves, the specific issue is the sovereignty of God in salvation. The main issue for Luther is that man does not have a free-will by which he merits eternal life, but God sovereignly saves those whom He has chosen.

Luther is pursuing the question, "Is God, God?" This means, is God the omnipotent who reigns over all and who sovereignly saves, or does He depend on man? If God depends on man for anything, then He is not God. Therefore Luther asks the question of himself: Who will try to reform his life, believe, and love God? His answer, "Nobody." No man can do this of himself. He needs God. "The elect, who fear God, will be reformed by the Holy Spirit; the rest will perish unreformed." Luther defends this truth so vigorously because it is the heart of the gospel. God is the sovereign God of salvation. If salvation depends on the works of man, he cannot be saved.

Certain implications necessarily follow from the views of salvation defended by both men. First, we must consider the implications which show the falsehood of Erasmus' view of salvation.

When Erasmus speaks of merit, he is really speaking as a Pelagian. This was offensive to Erasmus because he specifically claimed that he was not a Pelagian. But Luther rightly points out that Erasmus says man merits salvation. According to the idea of merit, man performs an act separate from God, which act is the basis of salvation. He deserves a reward. This is opposed to grace. Therefore, if merit is at all involved, man saves himself. This makes Erasmus no different from the Pelagians except that the Pelagians are honest. Pelagians honestly confess that man merits eternal life. Erasmus tries to give the appearance that he is against the Pelagians although he really is a Pelagian. Packer and Johnston make this analysis:

According to Luther, Erasmus does not succeed in moving closer to the Augustinian position. Instead, he cheapens the purchase of God's grace. Luther says:

The Pelagians base salvation upon works; men work for their own righteousness. But Erasmus has cheapened the price which must be paid for salvation. Because only a small work of man is needed to merit salvation, God is not so great and mighty. Man only needs to choose God and choose the good. God's character is tarnished with the teaching of Erasmus. This semi-Pelagianism is worse than Pelagianism, for little is required to earn salvation. As Packer and Johnston say, "that is to belittle salvation and to insult God."

Another implication of the synergistic view of salvation held to by Erasmus is that God is not God. Because salvation depends upon the free-will of man according to Erasmus, man ascribes divinity to himself. God is not God because He depends upon man. Man himself determines whether or not he will be saved. Therefore the study of soteriology is not the study of what God does in salvation, but soteriology is a study of what man does with God to deserve eternal life.

This means God's grace is not irresistible, but man can reject the grace of God. Man then has more power than God. God watches passively to see what man will do.

Finally, a serious implication of the view of Erasmus is that he denies salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone. In his Diatribe, Erasmus rarely mentions Jesus Christ. This shows something is wrong. This does follow from what Erasmus says. The emphasis for Erasmus is what man must do to be saved and not on what God has done in Jesus Christ. Therefore Jesus Christ is not the only way of salvation and is not that important.

Over against the implications of Erasmus' view are the orthodox implications of Luther's view. God is sovereign in salvation. God elects His people, He sent Jesus Christ, and reveals Jesus Christ only to His people. It is God who turns the enslaved wills of His people so that they seek after Him. Salvation does not depend upon the work of man in any sense.

The basis of salvation is Jesus Christ alone. Because man is enslaved to sin, He must be turned from that sin. He must be saved from that sin through the satisfaction of the justice of God. A man needs the work of Jesus Christ on the cross to be saved. A man needs the new life of Jesus Christ in order to inherit eternal life. The merits of man do not save because he merits nothing with God. A man needs the merits of Jesus Christ for eternal life. A man needs faith by which he is united to Christ.

The source of this salvation is election. God saves only those whom He elects. Those who receive that new life of Christ are those whom God has chosen. God is sovereign in salvation.

Because God is sovereign in salvation, His grace cannot be resisted. Erasmus says that the reason some do not believe is because they reject the grace which God has given to them. Luther implies that God does not show grace to all men. Instead, He saves and shows favor only to those who are His children. In them, God of necessity, efficaciously accomplishes His purpose.

Because man cannot merit eternal life, saving faith is not a work of man by which he merits anything with God. Works do not justify a man. Salvation is the work of God alone in Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit. Faith is a gift of God whereby we are united to Jesus Christ and receive the new life found in Him. Even the knowledge and confidence as the activity of faith are the gifts of faith.

Finally, only with this view of salvation that God is sovereign can a man have comfort that he will be saved. Because God is sovereign in salvation and because His counsel is immutable, we cannot fall from the grace of God. He preserves those who are His children. Erasmus could not have this comfort because he held that man determines his own salvation.

The Importance of This Controversy Today

Although this controversy happened almost five hundred years ago, it is significant for the church today. The error of "semi-Pelagianism" is still alive in the church today. Much of the church world sides with Erasmus today, even among those who claim to be "Reformed." If a "Reformed" or Lutheran church denies what Luther says and sides with Erasmus, they despise the reformation of the church in the sixteenth century. They might as well go back to the Roman Catholic Church.

This controversy is important today because many deny that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. A man can worship heathen gods and be saved. This follows from making works the basis of salvation. Over against this error, Martin Luther proclaimed the sovereignty of God in salvation. He proclaimed Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation. We must do the same.

The error of Pelagianism attacks the church in many different forms. We have seen that in the history of the Protestant Reformed Churches. The sovereignty of God in salvation has been attacked by the errors of common grace and a conditional covenant. Over against these errors, some in the church world have remained steadfast by the grace of God. God does not love all. Nor does He show favor to all men in the preaching of gospel. Erasmus himself said that God showed grace to all men and God does not hate any man. The Arminians said the same thing at the time of the Synod of Dordt. Yet, men who defend common grace claim to be Reformed. They are not.

Also, in this synergistic view of salvation, we see the principles of the bilateral, conditional covenant view which is in many "Reformed" churches. If God and man work together in salvation, then the covenant must be a pact in which both God and man must hold up each one's end of the agreement. Over against this we must proclaim the sovereignty of God in salvation especially in regard to the covenant. The covenant is not conditional and bilateral. God works unconditionally and unilaterally in the covenant of grace.

Finally, we must apply the truth of the sovereignty of God defended by Luther to ourselves. We could say there is a Pelagian in all of us. We know God sovereignly saves, but we often show by our practice that we proudly want to sneak a few of our works in the back door. We must depend upon God for all things.

May this truth which Martin Luther defended, the truth of the sovereignty of God in salvation, be preserved in the church.


TOPICS: History; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: bondageofthewill; catholic; christalone; erasmus; faithalone; gracealone; luther; martinluther; protestant; reformation; savedbygracealone; scripturealone; solascriptura; thegoodnews
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 4,301-4,3504,351-4,4004,401-4,450 ... 12,901-12,906 next last
To: qua
"Tertullian doesn't define Christianity. Neither does the tribal god of the Jews."
Whew! This is worse than I thought. Just so we're clear, are you claiming the god of the greeks is the true god over against the "tribal god of the Jews"?

Just so we are clear, it might be helpful if you quoted what I said in full. Since you didn't, let me elaborate. Tertullian is only one man. He doesn't get the authority to define Christianity all by himself.

What the early church said was that all people have some understanding of God, but that understanding is incomplete. Christianity completes all religions as the full revelation of God is in Christ.

Just how you interpreted incomplete to mean true god is a mystery.

The Holy Trinity is not a tribal god of some ethnic group, but of all creation. That is why Christianity is a universal religion in which there is neither Greek nor Jew. Christianity goes beyond ethnicity.

4,351 posted on 04/03/2006 10:12:59 PM PDT by stripes1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4349 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; HarleyD; jo kus; Agrarian; Kolokotronis
Well, it's a step ahead of biblical bats being called fowl, or mustard seed being the smallest seed or mustard plant a tree.

So when man decides to re-re-classify the animal and plant kingdoms, and some of those re-classifications match scripture, then you will change your mind and agree that God did know what He was talking about, at least on some things? I'm curious, since you say that the Bible is historically flawed and imperfect, do you say that Tradition is perfect, or is it also flawed? Did God leave us anything that is perfect, or is all of our knowledge of God littered with errors?

Next time you get sick, please don't call a doctor. In fact, don't even use Internet, or cell phones, or fly by airplanes. Obviously, all of these are scientific "traps" that belie the truth. The truth is, of course, that bats are fowl because the Bible says so, right?

I have no problem with science, I appreciate God's gifts. I have a problem when men trust science before they trust God. You have said that the Bible is filled with factual errors because it does not match the science of 2006. I am sure that others of different times have said the same thing, but for very different reasons. So will our legacies. If you believe the Bible is HOLY, you are elevating man's current standards of science above God. If you believe the Bible is HOLY, you are declaring God wrong because man decided to call things by different names. This does not make sense. How can you attempt to hold the view that the Bible is HOLY by explaining that it is filled with errors?

4,352 posted on 04/03/2006 11:07:23 PM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4167 | View Replies]

To: qua; stripes1776; Cronos; annalex

I can do little better at this time than to quote some passages from someone who is perhaps the most important Greek theologian of our day, Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos):

"It is a commonplace to declare from the start that there is a difference between philosophy and theology, since philosophy is man's invention, founded on the brain and the imagination, while theology is God's revelation to man, to his purified heart...

Ancient Greek philosophy makes a clear distinction between matter and reality. It considers reality to be a different thing from matter and the world -- all that we see and feel.

'A basic assumption of philosophy is that only the unbegotten and unchangable is immortal and real. Everything which has a beginning in time also has an end.' [here quoting Fr. John Romanides] Starting from this finding, ancient philosophy arrived at varioius conclusions which are diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Church. According to the ancient philosophers, 'creation is either a natural emanation of the essense of the one (pantheism), or a seeming or even fallen reflection of an unbegotten real world of basic ideas (idealism), or an indissoluble union of form and matter...' [again quoting Romanides]

Thus the philosophers either ended in a pantheism according to which God is identified with the world, or in an abstract idealism according to which God is a perfect, impersonal and inactive being, or else God is something evermotionless moving the ever-moving, without contact with the world.

...according to philosophy, man's liberation lies in fleeing from perishable matter and attaching himself to the unbegotten.

It can readily be seen that the god of the philosophers and philosophy is not the God of the Church, that the god of philosophy is an abstract and non-existent god and that the man of philosophy is not the same as the man of the Church.

In all these theories of the philosophers and philosophy we can see the antithesis of theology, and more generally of the Church's teaching and life, at two particular points. One is the content of the philosophers' teaching and the other is the methodology which the philosophers employ in coming to these conclusions.

All of the philosophers' views were rejected by the Fathers of the Church. In the Church we do not accept the teaching about ideas, nor the ontology of God as the philosophers describe it, not the pre-existence of the soul, nor the eternity of the world and of time, nor what is said about man's release, that the soul must leave the body, which is the soul's prison -- nor that God is the prime unmoving mover, etc.

By contrast, the holy Fathers express the Church's truth that God is not the idea of the good, as Plato said, but the personal God who was revealed to the Prophets, Apostles, and saints.

The holy Fathers also teach that love is not only a motion of man towards God, as Plato said, nor does it express the powerlessness of man who is moved towards the prime unmoving mover in order to feel completeness, but that it is a positive energy. God is not simply the unmoving mover, but He is at the same time moved towards man. He moves and is moved. And love is not a matter of man's weakness, since God Himself, Who is love and the object of love, Who moves and is moved, is also called love.

The fact that the Church rejected all these theories of the philosophers can be seen presented concisely in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, a text which is read on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Indeed not only were these theories rejected as heresies, but it is said explicitly and repeatedly that anyone who accepts the theories of the philosophers is anathematised by the Church. All who accept "the Platonic ideas as true" and say and accept "that matter is self-existent" are anathematized. Likewise all who accept and spread "the false and Hellenic sayings", all who assert that souls pre-exist and that all things did not come into being from naught, and have gone astray" are anathematised."


All of these brief excerpts come from a book called "The Person in the Orthodox Tradition." It is just one readily accessible book that should be read by anyone who wants to understand the relationship of Hellenic thought to Orthodox Christianity.

Because of the subject matter, it is quite "philosophical" compared to most Orthodox writings (the average Orthodox Christian is so far from the questions and issues of pagan Greek philosophy as to make these topics irrelevant), but it is a book that fills an important need.

Interestingly, the title of the first edition of this book, before it was expanded in its second edition, was "Person and Freedom," since personhood and freedom are inextricably related.


4,353 posted on 04/03/2006 11:19:57 PM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4349 | View Replies]

To: qua; kosta50

Those aren't "Greek categories", they are religious thoughts expressed by people who used the Greek language -- would I call your religious thoughts as "English classification" -- note that even non ethnic Greeks used Greek as a lingua franca, most notably St. Paul.


4,354 posted on 04/04/2006 12:36:25 AM PDT by Cronos (Remember 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia! Ultra-Catholic: Sola Scriptura leads to solo scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4350 | View Replies]

To: Agrarian; annalex
What annalex is saying, I think, is that just as the Scriptures were not written in a vacuum, they were never interpreted in a vacuum.

Yes, and as I say, in effect, to Alex in my 4333, I don't think I worded that post very well. :)

It would never occur to devout Catholics or Orthodox to question things like the Virgin Birth of Christ or the bodily Resurrection of Christ. This is because our tradition is unequivocal on these points -- we know that there is no other way for the Scriptures to be interpreted, not if we want to call ourselves Catholics or Orthodox Christians. (emphasis added)

This is a very key point for me. Is the greater reason you believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection because Tradition says so, or is it because the Bible says so? You believed in both, (both) before and after your conversion, so you have a unique perspective.

4,355 posted on 04/04/2006 1:15:55 AM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4169 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper

"Is the greater reason you believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection because Tradition says so, or is it because the Bible says so?"

The simple answer is, "yes."

OK, that's a little smart-alecky, but it's true. Orthodox Christians do not divide Scripture from the rest of Tradition. We view Scripture as being a part of the written body of work that reflects the one Holy Tradition of the Church.

Look, it is self-evident that the Scriptures can be interpreted in many ways. The saying goes that if you get two Protestants together for a Bible study, they'll come up with three explanations for the text they are studying.

Everyone interprets Scripture within a tradition, even if it is a tradition made up of a hodge-podge of different people who have preached or taught the Bible to them. We Orthodox understand the meaning of Scripture within a well-defined tradition. I think you understand that point.

But it is equally important to make another point -- one that will perhaps come closer to answering your question. Those things within Holy Tradition that are clearly talked about in the Bible are those things that we most unequivocally and firmly hold to.

For instance, with regard to a given event that is not a part of Scripture, there might be a couple of different variants on a tradition. But for something that is clearly detailed in the Scripture, such as the bodily Ascension into heaven of Christ, there is only one, very clear, tradition.

Not all written sources of Tradition have equal weight. So in that sense, I guess you could say that the historical details of the Virgin Birth and the bodily Resurrection of Christ would not be nearly as weighty to us if they were only a part of our non-Scriptural writings that convey the details of Tradition in written form.

But, it is the context of the interpretation of those Scriptures within our tradition that makes an Orthodox Christian basically impervious to anyone trying to find a way to call these things "cunningly devised fables." To anyone who has attended Saturday evening/Sunday morning services for any length of time, let alone a Paschal service or two, it would take great mental gymnastics to come up with any conclusion but that the Orthodox Church takes the Scriptural accounts of the bodily Resurrection extremely literally, and that no, this is not something that will be up for discussion at any time in the future.


4,356 posted on 04/04/2006 2:41:47 AM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4355 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
That seems to lead from Gnostic teachings of which that work of fiction: the Da Vinci code is filled with -- seeming to suggest that the very idea of Christ's divinity is some kind of Pauline conspiracy grabbed from Greek philosophy

Yes, and one specific, small but loud Gnostic gang, with such characters as Elaine Pagels, has been promoted by various media outlets as the bearers of truth in the last few years on various Satanic TV outlets -- like the History Channel and the Discovery Channel.

The possibility of foreseeable re-union between the East and the West has satan and his demons howling.

4,357 posted on 04/04/2006 3:39:15 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4348 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
Did God leave us anything that is perfect, or is all of our knowledge of God littered with errors?

Everything He made, including us, was made good, if I remember my Scripture. The error had to come from somewhere -- I would say it was us by abusing our freedom, which you deny so in your case it is something God "ordained."

In the fallen humanity, everything we know, including our faith, is flawed. And that includes our understanding of the Scripture -- or else we would not be having this discussion. Unless, of course, you believe that you are without a flaw and we are full of them.

I have no problem with science, I appreciate God's gifts. I have a problem when men trust science before they trust God

The two are not "miscible." You trust science because science produces results on demand. If you don't believe in gravity, jump off a tall building and you will believe. Trusting God comes from the heart; it requires faith, indeed hope, without a proof of experiment or reason, but only of experience. Trusting the unknown and the invisible is a different kind of faith altogether.

4,358 posted on 04/04/2006 4:01:20 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4352 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

though I think it's good in a way that there are howls from the devil -- shows that we are doing the right thing. Hopefully the Catholic Church will reverse the excesses of Vatican II and keep the dialogue going -- I have noticed changes in the Church that seem encouraging.


4,359 posted on 04/04/2006 4:06:45 AM PDT by Cronos (Remember 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia! Ultra-Catholic: Sola Scriptura leads to solo scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4357 | View Replies]

To: annalex; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; AlbionGirl; qua; ears_to_hear; Gamecock; OrthodoxPresbyterian; ...
It does not surprise me that you had a difficult time with Calvin. He rebukes so many of your beliefs with Scripture that it must be discouraging for you. But persevere.

I think I need a drink.

"And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." -- Rev. 21:6-8

Try this section of the Institutes. It can only do you good.

BOOK 4, CHAPTER 18

"...Another iniquity chargeable on the mass is, that it sinks and buries the cross and passion of Christ. This much, indeed, is most certain, the cross of Christ is overthrown the moment an altar is erected. For if, on the cross, he offered himself in sacrifice that he might sanctify us for ever, and purchase eternal redemption for us, undoubtedly the power and efficacy of his sacrifice continues without end. Otherwise, we should not think more honourably of Christ than of the oxen and calves which were sacrificed under the law, the offering of which is proved to have been weak and inefficacious because often repeated. Wherefore, it must be admitted, either that the sacrifice which Christ offered on the cross wanted the power of eternal cleansing, or that he performed this once for ever by his one sacrifice. Accordingly, the apostle says, "Now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Again: "By the which act we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Again: "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." To this he subjoins the celebrated passage: "Now, where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." The same thing Christ intimated by his latest voice, when, on giving up the ghost, he exclaimed, "It is finished." We are accustomed to observe the last words of the dying as oracular. Christ, when dying, declares, that by his one sacrifice is perfected and fulfilled whatever was necessary to our salvation. To such a sacrifice, whose perfection he so clearly declared, shall we, as if it were imperfect, presume daily to append innumerable sacrifices? Since the sacred word of God not only affirms, but proclaims and protests, that this sacrifice was once accomplished, and remains eternally in force, do not those who demand another, charge it with imperfection and weakness? But to what tends the mass which has been established, that a hundred thousand sacrifices may be performed every day, but just to bury and suppress the passion of our Lord, in which he offered himself to his Father as the only victim? Who but a blind man does not see that it was Satanic audacity to oppose a truth so clear and transparent? I am not unaware of the impostures by which the father of lies is wont to cloak his fraud, that the sacrifices are not different or various, but that the one sacrifice is repeated. Such smoke is easily dispersed. The apostle, during his whole discourse, contends not only that there are no other sacrifices, but that that one was once offered, and is no more to be repeated. The more subtle try to make their escape by a still narrower loophole, that it is not repetition, but application. But there is no more difficulty in confuting this sophism also. For Christ did not offer himself once, in the view that his sacrifice should be daily ratified by new oblations, but that by the preaching of the gospel and the dispensation of the sacred Supper, the benefit of it should be communicated to us. Thus Paul says, that "Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us," and bids us "keep the feast" (1 Cor. 5:7, 8). The method, I say, in which the cross of Christ is duly applied to us is when the enjoyment is communicated to us, and we receive it with true faith."


4,360 posted on 04/04/2006 9:14:14 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4320 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Forest Keeper; HarleyD; AlbionGirl; OrthodoxPresbyterian; qua; ears_to_hear; xzins; ...
this is why a Protestant pastor cannot absolve sin. Priesthood is an undelible mark that subordinates the actions of a priest to the will of God.

For a Protestant, this "priesthood" is one of the most grievous errors of the Roman Catholic church.

No man stands between the Good Shepherd and His sheep.

"Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, all evil speakings,

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy...

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." -- 1 Peter 2:1-10;24-25

One Shepherd. One salvation.

"All Christians are priests, and all priests are Christians. Worthy of anathema is any assertion that a priest is anything else than a Christian." -- Martin Luther

4,361 posted on 04/04/2006 9:41:49 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4330 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
From Jean Calvin: Another iniquity chargeable on the mass is, that it sinks and buries the cross and passion of Christ. This much, indeed, is most certain, the cross of Christ is overthrown the moment an altar is erected....

Calvin, like many who followed his train of thought, had a profound misunderstanding of what happens at a Catholic Mass. It is not surprising that this misunderstanding continues. The Mass is not a separate sacrifice that adds anything to Christ's one time sacrifice - it is a participation in, or re-presentation of Christ's one sacrifice. It enables us of 2006 to share in the graces that Jesus has made attainable through His one offering - which, being that He is God and eternal, is an eternal self-offering to the Father in heaven. We, as part of the Body, join in Christ's eternal offering. Thus, Calvin is clearly beating up a strawman by claiming that Catholics set up an altar that belittles the One Sacrifice of our Savior. It does the opposite by making it present for us today!

Thus Paul says, that "Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us," and bids us "keep the feast" (1 Cor. 5:7, 8).

And we will continue to celebrate the Mass, remembering what Christ did, until He comes again.

Regards

4,362 posted on 04/04/2006 10:02:11 AM PDT by jo kus (I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore CHOOSE life - Deut 30:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4360 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
No man stands between the Good Shepherd and His sheep.

We don't see priests as standing between us and God, but making God and His graces visible to us through the sacramental actions that we partake in. Christ acts through these men so that we HEAR that our sins are forgiven. Do Calvinists baptize themselves? Do Calvinists read the Scriptures, a book written by men? I would say that my separated brothers also access God through men, as well.

Regards

4,363 posted on 04/04/2006 10:05:41 AM PDT by jo kus (I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore CHOOSE life - Deut 30:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4361 | View Replies]

To: annalex; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; AlbionGirl; qua; xzins
I can attest to the devastation that St. Francis de Sales wrought on Calvin.

"Let us run to Mary, and, as her little children, cast ourselves into her arms with a perfect confidence." -- St. Francis de Sales

Shame on Frank. Mary is not our parent.

"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." -- Galatians 3:22-26


4,364 posted on 04/04/2006 10:06:54 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4332 | View Replies]

To: Agrarian; qua; Cronos; annalex
All of these brief excerpts come from a book called "The Person in the Orthodox Tradition." It is just one readily accessible book that should be read by anyone who wants to understand the relationship of Hellenic thought to Orthodox Christianity.

There is a somewhat different perspective expressed on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website that discusses how the tension between Hellenistic thought and Christianity was resolved.

The spread of Christianity would have been impossible without the Roman Empire that turned the Mediterranean into a big Roman lake. Christianity never took deep roots in the Semitic world but Islam did. Christianity eventually flourished in that Greco-Roman culture of the Roman Empire once a systhesis had been worked out. There were many points of contact that made that possible.

4,365 posted on 04/04/2006 10:11:02 AM PDT by stripes1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4353 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; AlbionGirl; qua; xzins; OrthodoxPresbyterian; ears_to_hear; ...
I would say that my separated brothers also access God through men, as well.

Not even in the slightest. Where one man prays, there is a church. Where one man repents, there is forgiveness. Where one man believes in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, there is salvation.

Do Calvinists read the Scriptures, a book written by men?

Ah, there, my separated brother, is our great divide. You elevate the traditions of men over the word of God.

4,366 posted on 04/04/2006 10:17:51 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4363 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
You elevate the traditions of men over the word of God.

Am I? Wasn't the Bible written by human beings inspired by God? Thus, God deemed that He would reveal Himself through men. Thus, I am thinking that you ALSO access God through the words that Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc., used to express God's Word. Scripture was written by men. We, you and I, BOTH access God through Sacred Scriptures. Of course, the Word of God, in its totality, is NOT Scripture, but Jesus Christ, correct?

Regards

4,367 posted on 04/04/2006 11:10:29 AM PDT by jo kus (I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore CHOOSE life - Deut 30:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4366 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Your example of gravity is just the reverse. You have no faith, then something happens, and, as you can reproduce the result on demand, you believe in it. That's faith but not blind faith.

I did not express myself clearly. The blind faith of science is the scientific method itself. That if an effect can be reproduced every time it is tried, then it is a "hard fact", -- is the deductive scientific method and it requires just as much faith as the Incarnation. Now, once a scientist has faith in his method, he produces proofs, that, for example, men cannot walk on water. Likewise, once a theologian has faith he produces proofs that, for example, men who steady their spiritual gaze on Christ can walk on water. Faith and reason necessarily interoperate in theology and they interoperate in science, just as much.

Moreover, reason cannot start absent faith, -- theorem cannot be proven absent axiom. But faith can start absent reason, as we see in children.

4,368 posted on 04/04/2006 11:22:06 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4345 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
Is the greater reason you believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection because Tradition says so, or is it because the Bible says so?

I believe in the Incarnation and the Resurrection, like most Christians, since childhood, because my parents taught me (even though my childhood education in the atheist Soviet Union had its defects). In fact, even as a an adult, I experience my faith in Church before I can articulate it, and I hear the scripture before I read it. When I read the scripture it is to confirm my oral impression of it as I heard it from the pulpit, refresh my memory, or, like here, to argue a point. I think this is fairly common among both Catholics and the Orthodox, that they are stronger in the internalized scripture than they are in bookish prooftexting.

4,369 posted on 04/04/2006 11:31:50 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4355 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I did not have a difficulty understanding Calvin, I am irritated by his intellectual arrogance and sloppiness of exegesis. Like I said before, I think he is a better philosopher than he is a theologian, as he constructed an internally consistent, albeit heretical, picture of a god. He does not understand the scripture he quotes, and I am left with the impression that he does not care very much, happy to present the first excuse that turns up when the scripture does not agree with him. I pointed out several examples in my previous posts.

In this discourse about the Eucharist, we see that same regrettable quality. First, an argument out of his own head is made: "cross of Christ is overthrown the moment an altar is erected". Then, a series of quotes from St. Paul are offered, describing the Cross. They say nothing about the Eucharist, but it appears that Calvin's reasoning is rooted in the writings of St. Paul. The underlying assumption is that the Eucharist is an additional sacrifice that adds something to the Cross. A chat with a local priest would have disabused Calvin of that notion, but such a chat would require Calvin to shut up and listen, not his strongest suit. Toward the end, he gets around to the real issue, that the Eucharist connects to the same one and only Cross St. Paul is talking about. This is also typical for his method, that 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. No mention is made of John 6, nor of 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, where the connection between the Altar and the Cross is made explicit, but instead 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 is given. Well, surprise: it is misquoted. "Gar to pascha emon yper emon etuthe Christos", "even like our pasch/eucharist for us sacrificed Christ" does not call Christ our pasch, but rather explains the sacrifical character of the eucharistic feast, just like the parish priest would have told him.


4,370 posted on 04/04/2006 11:59:01 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4360 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Dear annalex,

"I think this is fairly common among both Catholics and the Orthodox, that they are stronger in the internalized scripture than they are in bookish prooftexting."

Having taught Bible study in my parish, I agree with you. Catholics often know the stories, the parables, the events of the Bible, but often couldn't tell you book, chapter, or verse if our lives depended on it. Of course, shame on us for not learning all those inerrant chapter and verse numbers.


;-)


sitetest


4,371 posted on 04/04/2006 12:05:53 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4369 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
No man stands between the Good Shepherd and His sheep

This quoting without understanding is a mark of a true Calvinist.

ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood

(1 Peter 2, quoted in full in your post)

Question: if we are all royal priesthood, who are the sheep? Since when "royal" describes a crowd?

One Shepherd. One salvation

Salvation is one, but St. Peter was charged to shepherd the sheep. Need scripture for that?

4,372 posted on 04/04/2006 12:08:37 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4361 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Mary is not our parent.

"Behold your mother".

4,373 posted on 04/04/2006 12:09:47 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4364 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
"No man stands between the Good Shepherd and His sheep."

Absolutely, Dr. E, not to mention onerous dogma. That is not only how I see it, it is very much how I experienced it, suppressed it, experienced it, suppressed it, experienced it, etc, again, and again, and again.

This argument is as old as the end of the 1st Century (at least I'm pretty sure it is), and it will not die, because it cannot die.

As I make my way out of the maze I have been trying to steer my way through, it is God's voice that comforts and guides me. St. Paul's instruction is a fine adjunct too.

St. Paul left his gentiles in the Loving Arms of Our Christ he preached Crucified, Who would no more narrow the gate, than take back His words, that even 'those who were not against Him, were for Him.'

By the way, good Dr., you're in fine form.

4,374 posted on 04/04/2006 1:42:02 PM PDT by AlbionGirl (God made the Gate so narrow. No man has the right to make it more narrow still.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4361 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; Agrarian
But as a Catholic, I am not absolutely required to place my faith in private miracles, even those declared suitable for belief by the faithful. Personally, if the Church has examined such claims suffiiciently, then I would go along with their findings.

I was under the impression that new Saints are declared every year, is that true? I am assuming that the Church would have to adjudicate in favor of the private miracles for that to happen. Off the top of your head, do you happen to know where JPII stands in the process? As an outsider, I always liked him.

FK: "Since they did not have in vitro technology, why can't science disprove a virgin birth 2000 years ago?"

How are you going to disprove it? It was not observed by science. All of science's hypothesis, laws and theorums are based on observation. Using observation, they come to a conclusion on what will LIKELY happen in a similar circumstance, either from the past or the future. Since science did not observe and record the Christ's conception, science cannot disprove anything.

Consider the following: Somewhere in the world, in the year 1478, someone dropped a hammer. Under your argument, no scientist today could possibly tell us what happened next. Did it fall to the ground? Did it hover in mid-air? Or, did it sprout wings and fly around the room? No one can tell us because a scientist wasn't there to observe it. Imagine further that we line up 1,000 scientists and give them the same hypo. How many would agree with you and say "no one can know what happened to the hammer", and how many would agree with me that it fell to the ground?

4,375 posted on 04/04/2006 2:04:10 PM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4174 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
[Spurgeon:] "Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself..."

FK: "I have seen all of this on this thread in one form or another. Most of the time, it has been exactly like Spurgeon puts it here."

Thanks for letting us know we have been wasting our time trying to tell you that we don't come to God alone about a thousand times...

You misunderstand. The line from Spurgeon does not say "...turn to thee of myself ALONE ..." I know you have said many times that you do not come to the Lord alone, and I have always accepted that as your position. However, the difference is that under your view, some of it IS from you because you make the final decision. You have tools from God to use or reject, but in the end you decide one way or the other. That is what I was referring to, and that is what I disagree with.

4,376 posted on 04/04/2006 2:34:54 PM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4176 | View Replies]

To: annalex

"Moreover, reason cannot start absent faith, -- theorem cannot be proven absent axiom. But faith can start absent reason, as we see in children."

Beautifully stated.

I remember going through a bit of a "crisis" as I got into the higher levels of calculus in college.

Things had changed from a neat world where, for instance, one could multiply length x width of a rectangle and have an "exact" area (of course the italics are there because one can never have an exact area of an actual rectangular surface due to the limitations of measuring the lengths and determining the precision of a right angle) -- to a much messier world where one was dealing with irregular objects.

At the very least, with a theoretical rectangle, one can calculate an exact area in a way that the average mind can visualize. I remember talking to the professor at the time, asking him if the problems we were solving really gave an exact calculation of the area of a surface with irregularly curved edges, or whether it was just an estimation -- even in a theoretical, perfect world situation.

He thought a minute, and then replied: "What is important is not that it is exact. What is important is that it is consistent." In other words, he was differentiating clearly between consistent reproducibility and truth, even in a discipline as "hard" as mathematics. (He was a Christian -- a conservative Catholic, as I recall -- incidentally.)

And of course, even the consistency of reproducibility depends on the conditions, even as specified in theoretical problems. Newtonian physics is perfectly servicable for ordinary everyday life (and according to Newtonian physics it is, of course, impossible for a man to walk on water), but it breaks down as a tool for explaining other situations -- thus the development of quantum mechanics, relativity, etc... And of course the highest levels of theoretical physics today almost resemble philosophy and metaphysics more than they resemble what we think of as a reproducible science.

Certainly the evolutionary biology that I learned demanded incredible amounts of axiomatic faith. The only way one could be attuned to seeing the faith involved in evolutionary biology was if one had a sense of the authority of revelation that was powerful enough to force one to step back and look at it more objectively.

You are exactly right that reason, and even observation for that matter, require faith (i.e. working assumptions or axioms) as a starting point. The fact that these axioms produce working results reinforces the wisdom of trusting them, but by definition an axiom is an unprovable proposition that one chooses to trust in.

Likewise, ones direct experience of God together with the historical experience of the Church reinforces the wisdom of trusting the starting axiom or working assumption of Christianity -- that is, the deposit of faith once delivered, Holy Tradition in its entirety, that we in faith accept and believe.


4,377 posted on 04/04/2006 3:29:37 PM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4368 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The blind faith of science is the scientific method itself. That if an effect can be reproduced every time it is tried, then it is a "hard fact", -- is the deductive scientific method and it requires just as much faith as the Incarnation

Not even close! Scientific method is restricted to creating working models, through observation and experimentation. Within a defined environment, the model works. Thus, the Ptolemaic navigational system works today as it did in the 2nd century A.D. although it is factually wrong.

Clearly, today we know for certain that the Sun is not located between Venus and Mars. But his system predicts positions of heavenly bodies because it was tailored to observed motions and expressed (described) by mathematical fourmlae. Mathematics is simply a system of expressions that describe a relationship of terms, whether they are real or not. That relationship is absolute, i.e. a straight line is defined by two points.

There is nothing to disbelieve science: it either works, in which canse we "believe" it (more like "accept" it), or it doesn't work, in which case we discard it, "disbelieve" the reasoning behind it and reject it as false.

Faith is "evidence of things unseen" says +Paul; it is hope; it is not something you can observe, systematize and define so that it may "produce" desired effect on demand, repeatedly.

4,378 posted on 04/04/2006 3:36:16 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4368 | View Replies]

To: Agrarian; annalex
He thought a minute, and then replied: "What is important is not that it is exact. What is important is that it is consistent."

There is something known as conditioning that does not require reason, but simply programs a living creature nor matter how high or low to a set of responses. It's not a matter of reason or faith, but simply of rewards. Feels good; feels bad.

With all due respect to your professor, an area of any shape can be calculated if proper expressions are integrated. An expression is broken every-diminishing derivatives and an exact area is theoretically possible in a theoretical world. In the real world, the precision is carried to practical limits. So, the answer is -- theoretically -- yes; practically no. And his observation is realistically correct: consistency is much more important for most applications.

4,379 posted on 04/04/2006 3:47:45 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4377 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Of course one uses integration. That is what the professor and I were discussing.

Exactly what means do you personally use to confirm the exactness of a result arrived at by integration?


4,380 posted on 04/04/2006 4:25:14 PM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4379 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Agrarian
There is nothing to disbelieve [in] science: it either works, in which canse we "believe" it (more like "accept" it), or it doesn't work

Yes there is. In astronomy, for example, all you know is that the given mathematical model worked for the observations done in the past. You then believe that it works for the future observations also. Forget the specific astronomical model; how do you know that the sun will come up tomorrow? You observe it come up in the past, and you came up with one or another model with circles and ellipses that fit the past observations. Whether or not that will work in the future is a "thing unseen" requiring faith.

The Scripture offers another model, whereby the sun will not come up one day:

On the contrary, It is stated (Apocalypse 10:6) that the angel who appeared, "swore by him that liveth for ever and ever . . . that time shall be no longer," namely after the seventh angel shall have sounded the trumpet, at the sound of which "the dead shall rise again" (1 Corinthians 15:52). Now if time be not, there is no movement of the heaven. Therefore the movement of the heaven will cease.

(Summa, Supplement, 91.2)

Both models work for the observed past, and both require faith to make statements about the future.
4,381 posted on 04/04/2006 5:40:54 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4378 | View Replies]

To: Agrarian

By the use of limits. I imagine you are familiar with that mathematical term.


4,382 posted on 04/04/2006 6:29:03 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4380 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Agrarian
In astronomy, for example, all you know is that the given mathematical model worked for the observations done in the past

Astronomers don't "believe" the sun will come up tomorrow. They have certain degree of expectation based on probability, which is based on observed phenomena, knowledge of the solar system, knowledge of the age of the Sun, the longevity of similar yellow stars, etc. In other words it's based on the law of averages, a purely mathematical construct.

Whether or not that will work in the future is a "thing unseen" requiring faith

Not really, annalex. Astrophysicists can tell you pretty much that the Sun will undergo some significant changes at one point in its life, turning into a red giant and engulfing the inner planets, including the earth. If the sun behaves like hexatrillions of other stars, the probability is high that the earth will disappear before the sun does. But at one point, the sun should use up its nuclear fuel and turn into a carbon star, that will burn itself into iron, and collapse onto itself and explode, becoming a very dense white dwarf that will spin at incredible speed until it burns out and becomes space debris and "dark matter."

Can there be exceptions? Sure. The probability exists even for that. In other words, scientists don't "hope" to be right on things unseen in the future; they place a certain degree of probability on an event based on the laws of nature and observed phenomena.

4,383 posted on 04/04/2006 6:39:35 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4381 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Agrarian

You might be talking of two different things. Agrarian spoke of "surface with irregularly curved edges". You are talking of integrating "proper expressions". If no formula for the edge is known, calculus is no help, you are back to counting squares in a grid, like the first man.

In either case, I am talking about cardinal necessity of faith in any reasoning about the future, not about issues with precision. Newton (or Ptolemy, or Einstein) depend on faith not because they miss finer points of celestial mechanics, but because, like Aquinas said, in the Christian belief system the whole rig is going to poof, stop, while in most scientific belief systems it keeps turning forever.


4,384 posted on 04/04/2006 6:48:32 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4382 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

The point it, whether the scientific model is stochastic or any other kind, the faith is that the model that worked in the past will work in the future. Once that is posited axiomatically, sure you can make predictions as per the model.


4,385 posted on 04/04/2006 6:51:20 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4383 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Agrarian
Agrarian spoke of "surface with irregularly curved edges"

You can define any surface with a mathematical formula.

I am talking about cardinal necessity of faith in any reasoning about the future, not about issues with precision...in the Christian belief system the whole rig is going to poof, stop, while in most scientific belief systems it keeps turning forever

What you call "faith" in any reasoning about the future -- it is not blind faith as you have faith in God; it is an expression of calculated confidence based on observed phenomena.

As for the scientific "belief" that the systems will keep on turning forever, that is incorrect. The Big Bang theory certainly predicts that "the whole rig is going to poof, stop," but the reason is different from that given by +Aquinas.

The Church simply surmised a spiritual truth that all that is created ans rendered corrupt with our fall must itself fall (all that has a beginning has an end). The scientists have evidence that a cataclysmic set of events will destroy not only our earth but the whole solar system, and billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars; that all of this is going to collapse onto itself only to be resurrected from its own ashes.

4,386 posted on 04/04/2006 8:42:52 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4384 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776
Christianity never took deep roots in the Semitic world but Islam did.

I would dispute that -- do remember that most of north Africa and the Middle east bar the Arabian peninsula was Christian before the Islamic invasions -- however, 1400 years of slow genocide has decimated them to now where only 2% of Egypt, 10% of Syria, 2% of the Palestinians, 5% of Iraqis and 45% of Lebanese are Christians.
4,387 posted on 04/04/2006 8:53:01 PM PDT by Cronos (Remember 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia! Ultra-Catholic: Sola Scriptura leads to solo scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4365 | View Replies]

To: annalex; kosta50

I do not think that the principle is any different between questions of precision or of reasoning about the future, although the implications for Christianity vis a vis science are obviously much greater for the latter.

My point was that mathematics, while useful, is even in many theoretical situations exact only by being self-referential. And it is always fundamentally rooted in axioms, not to mention unprovable and unmeasurable concepts such as infinity.


4,388 posted on 04/04/2006 9:00:01 PM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4384 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; annalex

"...it is not blind faith as you have faith in God; it is an expression of calculated confidence based on observed phenomena..."

Which brings us back to the original point at issue. I would submit that our faith in God is not blind at all. A combination of direct experience, observed phenomena, and the historical record of God's revelation of himself to man throughout history leads us to a "calculated confidence" of a different kind.

St. Paul did not say "blind faith in things not seen," but rather that "faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen."

Christ did not disappear into thin air and expect his disciples to figure out some spiritual principles. He appeared to them, had them put their fingers in his hands and sides, and ate with them. He took the time "beginning at Moses and all the prophets" to expound "unto them in all the scriptures concerning himself."

They left their record of that, and told us that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

And with that gentlemen, I have been with this thread for nearly 2000 posts. Quite enough for me, and more than enough given that this is Great Lent. I will join my friend jo kus in taking a break, and will give Kosta the last word.


4,389 posted on 04/04/2006 9:31:26 PM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4386 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
One could be considered "saved", but I don't define "saved" as being of the elect. ... I won't ask the follow up question, as then we'd start that awful cycle again...

Fair enough. :)

FK: "But that does not seem to match scripture. {One must persevere and continue to follow His voice.} (your bolded insert)

Perseverance is not found in Scriptures?

That wasn't the part I was responding to. I was referencing the first sentence: "All who follow Christ's voice are not necessarily His sheep.". I was saying that since it takes grace, how could someone follow without BEING one of the sheep?

We have a familial relationship with God, not so much a legal relationship. Thus, God doesn't desire to force us to "choose" Him.

I agree with the first part, which is why I do not think a loving parent allows his child to walk off a cliff right in front of his eyes.

Regarding man's "whim", your wife could have overridden your "offer that she couldn't refuse" as well.

That's only because I don't have the full power of God. If I did, I would have known exactly what to say or do to guarantee her "yes", and I would have done that. God knows what it takes to "get" His elect, and He pushes those buttons.

There is even longer list, if you also consider the writings of Paul and the rest of the NT. Brother, we CAN fall away, there is no doubt on that. The elect cannot, but NO ONE knows who that is in this life.

Thank you for all the scripture verses on perseverance and the interpretations. I might disagree with some of the interpretations, but I do agree that perseverance is necessary and that the elect will not fall away.

First, the gate is NOT closed - it doesn't say that! It says ONLY the "sheep" will enter, presumably, the elect.

Yes, only the elect. What kind of a shepherd leaves the gate open? The sheep would be free to wander out and be lost.

Second, you are saying that only those who FIRST enter the sheepfold THEN hear the voice of Christ.

No, The Shepherd calls His sheep by name, and they enter through the gate. The Shepherd doesn't call another shepherd's sheep, only His own. Yes, only the elect enter the gate, those are the only sheep the Father has given the Shepherd.

By the way, did you notice that it was the sheep who entered the sheepfold, and that the Shepherd did not lasso and drag them in through the gate???

He didn't need to lasso them "kicking and screaming". He called their names and they knew to come because they recognized the voice. It was automatic, not based on a decision made by the stupid sheep.

Thus, in a sense, Christ's death is only effective for the sheep. It is an opportunity for ALL men, just as Adam's sin was a curse for ALL men.

I would agree with you on the salient point that Christ's death was only effective for the sheep. We can quibble about the rest, but I think we agree on the most important part.

4,390 posted on 04/04/2006 9:41:31 PM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4179 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I would dispute that -- do remember that most of north Africa and the Middle east bar the Arabian peninsula was Christian before the Islamic invasions

Yes, the Mediterranean was a big Roman lake and the Roman Empire made the spread of Christianity possible.

-- however, 1400 years of slow genocide has decimated them to now where only 2% of Egypt, 10% of Syria, 2% of the Palestinians, 5% of Iraqis and 45% of Lebanese are Christians.

North Africa and the Middle East are a mixture of many races and cultures. The vast majority of Jews and Arabs never converted to Christianity. And those who did could easily convert to Islam. If Christian roots had been deep in the Arabian peninsula, Muhammad would never have been successful in his jihad.

Yes, I think we do disagree as to why Islam was able to uproot Christianity in the Middle East. And what little is left will continue to shrink.

4,391 posted on 04/04/2006 10:21:43 PM PDT by stripes1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4387 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776
The vast majority of Jews and Arabs never converted to Christianity

Not really true -- Egypt was mostly Christian by the 6th century -- as was Syria, Western Mesopotamia, Turkey etc. In the Arabian peninsula you had Arians and Nestorians Christians preaching, while in India you had St. Thomas' Christians right from the 1st century.

In fact Christians were in the majority in Islamic lands well into the Crusades but were slowly ground down by jaziya, persecution etc.
4,392 posted on 04/04/2006 10:24:36 PM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4391 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Not really true -- Egypt was mostly Christian by the 6th century -- as was Syria, Western Mesopotamia, Turkey etc.

Egypt was part of the Roman Empire which was Christian. Asia Minor (Turkey) was part of the Roman Empire too and therefore Christian. We have already covered that, didn't we?

In the Arabian peninsula you had Arians and Nestorians Christians preaching,

Yes, we have already established that Christians were present in the Arabian peninsula. My point is this: Christianity did not strike deep roots in Arabia and those roots were easily pulled up by Muhammad and his followers. And you disagree with that statement.

while in India you had St. Thomas' Christians right from the 1st century.

Thomas made few converts. Not only were the roots shallow in India, but they were sparse as well. We know that some churches were established even further east in China, but there were few converts. Christianity withered away in China.

4,393 posted on 04/04/2006 11:42:32 PM PDT by stripes1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4392 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776; Cronos

Christianity was weak in the East, and it withered away, because it was majority-heretical. A lesson for the Protestants in this.


4,394 posted on 04/05/2006 7:46:43 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4393 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
God MADE us in His image - which means we have been given a rational intellect and a will. No other visible creature has that. So HOW is God's sovereignty taken away if He made us this way? Are you saying God now regrets giving us too much control over His actions?

Free will allows for choices against God's plan for salvation, assuming God depends on our decisions for His. That lessens His sovereignty because the saved are not by His choice but ours. I don't think God regrets giving us too much control because, in reality, He never gave us any control. :)

God's sovereignty is NOT destroyed by ANYTHING we do! That's like saying a fly on the table is controlling my sovereignty because I choose not to crush it...Does that make me "weaker"? Am I dependent on the fly???

In reality, your first statement is true. I am talking about the theoretical loss of sovereignty if man actually had free will. I don't agree with your fly analogy because you did not create the fly, and you do not love the fly. A "closer" one might be if you had a beloved dog, who one day and for no apparent reason, decided to attack you. THEN, you decided to get rid of the dog or have him destroyed. Your original plan was to keep and love the dog for its whole life, but the dog thwarted your plan, and thus you do not have absolute sovereignty. (Yes, I know God is outside of time, but this is an approximation, and I'm not sure how to fix that with a human analogy. :)

I am "trying" to see things from how God would see them outside of time, since He is the point of reference in this discussion, not man. A being outside of time does not have a past or future. Thus, there is no "waiting" to make a decision, no dependence on what we do, and no guessing or hoping that we fulfill His plan. All time is compressed into one moment.

I still think this approach avoids the issue. :) Compressing all time into one moment would seem to open up all sorts of worm cans such as the young earth/old earth debate, and did God create the earth in 6 days, or in an instant, etc.? There must be a hundred others. However, if the essence of my view is permissible under Catholicism, then that's something. :)

4,395 posted on 04/05/2006 7:56:06 AM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4191 | View Replies]

To: jo kus; annalex
[Annalex:] This passage [2 Timothy 3:16-17] can as soon be used to prooftext that only bishops should read the scripture.

This is consistent with the Catholic view that I have been presented. Seeing as how you agreed with this statement, do either of you mind if I tell other people that Catholics believe that only bishops should read the scriptures? :)

4,396 posted on 04/05/2006 8:22:19 AM PDT by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4193 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Agrarian
You can define any surface with a mathematical formula.

Kosta, this has nearly nothing to do with the rest of the discussion, but no, you cannot. Since there is a finite alphabet of symbols that go in formulas, the set of formulas is enumerable, f1, f2, ..., etc. A surface z(x,y) not defined with any f1, f2, ... is built by this diagonal process: z(x,y) is f1(x,y) except

z(0,1) = f1(0,1)+1
z(0,2) = f2(0,2)+1
...
As you can see, surface z differs from any enumerated formula in at least one point. Since only discrete points were used to build the differences, z can be made contiguous as well.

I feel like I am back in school.

***

it is not blind faith as you have faith in God; it is an expression of calculated confidence based on observed phenomena

What Agrarian said in 4389.

The Big Bang theory certainly predicts ...

It is fine to compare several theories and find one better than the others. Yet they all are based on some axiomatic principles taken on faith. It is either Christian faith or faith in the scientific method, or some combination of the two. I am, of course, not calling to abandon the scientific method, but merely pointing out its dependence on faith.

4,397 posted on 04/05/2006 9:38:42 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4386 | View Replies]

To: Agrarian; jo kus
I will join my friend jo kus in taking a break

Thank you both for your patience and contributions; we are honored to keep this place warm for you till you are back.

4,398 posted on 04/05/2006 9:40:42 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4389 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper

The Catholics don't believe in prooftexting; my comment merely illustrates that one who prooftexts could easily prooftext in the Catholic direction.

The Catholic church teaches that anyone can read the scripture but guidance of the Church is necessary if he wishes to understand it.


4,399 posted on 04/05/2006 9:43:43 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4396 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Forest Keeper; Agrarian; kosta50; Kolokotronis; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; AlbionGirl
I found this today and thought it might be useful to consider for your continued discussions. There is no need to reply to me. I would like to remind everyone that Charles Spurgeon was a five-point Calvinist. Here is what He preached in a sermon on August 1, 1858, titled "Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility". It seems Pastor Spurgeon goes beyond what some of our Calvinist friends are willing to go.

"I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no precedence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.... You ask me to reconcile the two. I answer, they do not want any reconcilement; I never tried to reconcile them to myself, because I could never see a discrepancy.... Both are true; no two truths can be inconsistent with each other; and what you have to do is to believe them both."

The Church has many such paradoxical truths. We must hold to both of them, even if we don't fully understand their interaction. The God-man. A suffering savior. Authority and Freedom, for example. Perhaps it would be good to remember Paul's famous saying after His wonderful exposition in Romans 9-11 on HIS understanding of God's ways:

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable [are] his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom [be] glory for ever. Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)

Regards to all, have a wonderful Easter

4,400 posted on 04/05/2006 10:07:31 AM PDT by jo kus (I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore CHOOSE life - Deut 30:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4398 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 4,301-4,3504,351-4,4004,401-4,450 ... 12,901-12,906 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson