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

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

[Forest Keeper]

In a sense, what you would prefer is sort of like what an Orthodox priest says. Here are the words of absolution usually used by Greek Orthodox priests.

Thank you so much for sharing that, Kolo, that is fascinating. I really like the humility, sincerity, and style of what the priest says. All in all I would have to say that (if it were proper for me as an outsider) it would be very agreeable to me to give a confession to such a response. I have never heard a more artful "bridge" concerning John 20:23 in my life. I didn't think it was possible for there to be a bridge. :)

[Forest Keeper]

[FK to jo kus] The Biblical errors that you and Kosta are claiming are not self-evident. It takes a specific disbelief on your parts to cast those scriptures aside.

When did I say that I don't believe the Scriptures?

I'm not saying that you don't believe in scriptures. :) I am saying that you have declared multiple factual errors in the scriptures, and do not believe that many passages/stories in the Bible are true in full, but only true in part. I disagree and say that without sufficient evidence to the contrary, that the scriptures are meant to be taken at face value in the factual sense. How do you separate which Biblical facts to take literally, and which to take symbolically?

So, why condemn someone who believes Scripture is true and inerrant but not as you see it? I never said I wanted to throw any part out, or intentionally disbelieve?

I wasn't condemning you. :) However, I do have to say that you do throw out a large portion of scripture when you convert plainly stated words to myth or symbolism. You'll keep part of the meaning, but you will also throw out other meaning. As Agrarian said, in effect, parables are fairly easy to spot for their intended purpose. But with the factual sides of the scriptures you want to dismiss, it isn't so easy.

For example, how much of the Book of Numbers would you keep as fact? I mean, if you threw out all the "numbers" and all the lists, and all of the specifications, then you could sum up the whole thing spiritually in maybe one chapter, couldn't you? Do you see that as being God's intended purpose, to make us weed through all that falsity to get, comparatively, a small amount of spiritual truth? In all honesty, I do not. My attitude is that if it is that hard for me to get through end to end, it had better be important! :)

[Kolokotronis]

" Thank you so much for sharing that, Kolo, that is fascinating."

I am curious. Why do you find it fascinating, FK? The Holy Spirit approaches us in humilty. Christ, in dying on the Cross, gave us the supreme example of humilty (in fact there is an icon called exactly that which is particularly appropriate right about now)

Shouldn't one of God's holy priests approach us in the same way? I am happy to have had the opportunity to demonstrate one of the Mysteries of The Church (my favorite after the Eucharist) to you and perhaps dispel what might have been a misconception.

[kosta50]

Jo kus has withdrawn from this discussion, so I am replying only to you.

He allows it rather than causes it. I have already made my case for this

Well, when you figure out why He allows it, let me know. You seem to know How He thinks for everything else, contrary to what you said a paragraph earlier. But, as for your "case" it seems you have convinced yourself more than those you are trying to convince. Maybe you should start with your more recent Calvinist member, Albion Girl (post #4432); she seems to believe that God made everything, the good -- and the bad.

Perhaps it was to show us our need for Him and that we must be completely dependent on Him

Maybe you can explain to me first why would the "rejects" depend on, and need Him if they have been "condemned" to hell from all eternity?

...you continue to mix man's and God's points of view

And you continue to write as if you know what God thinks? Everyone else seems to be doing that. This is why I am skeptical about the Bible. Everyone reads into it what he or she wants.

[kosta50]

I'm not saying that you don't believe in scriptures. :) I am saying that you have declared multiple factual errors in the scriptures, and do not believe that many passages/stories in the Bible are true in full, but only true in part

I see different interpretations of the same books by various Christian groups and even by the Jews who use them. This tells me that none of us has a full understanding of, or can claim biblical literacy.

The Bible does say that all Scripture is good, but doe snot say what precisely is Scripture. We do not agree what is Scripture, we do not read the Scripture the same way and we, individually do not, within our own denominations, understand them the same way. So, the one who knows the Scripture, or who knows what Scripture is, please stand up!

Is Scripture "scripture" simply because we call it that? Is the Koran "scripture?" Is the Book of Mormon? To the Muslims and the Mormons, they are. That means, Scripture is what men consider "scripture." How is that different from my assertions?

[Forest Keeper]

[Qua to Agrarian as quoted by Kosta:] "The problem that still captivates the Greek and [sic] latin Churches is that [sic] it's doctrines of Holy Tradition [sic] keeps it imprisoned within the Greek system..."

I know I'm not part of this line, but when you start attacking the form of a post, rather than its substance, then I'm forced to say something. If you would like to know the proper use of the word "sic", then I suggest you start here: AskOxford . I am certain there are others on this thread who could back me up that your use is improper.

In addition, out of courtesy, I have corrected well more than 25 of your spelling errors when I have quoted back to you. I am certain that others have done the same for me. Come on, Kosta, we all make typos and grammar errors. :)

[annalex]

I think your point was that believing in God is hard and believing in gravity is easy. I point out that observation of flying and falling objects does not support gravity as we know it to operate, but observation of the Creation confirms our faith in God every time we open our eyes. The reason you look at falling or flying objects and wisper "gravity" is because of the school indoctrination. You should be wispering, "God".

[Kolokotronis]

FK, you will find this comment by Fr. John Romanides, an eminent and recently deceased Orthodox theologian, informative on the subject we have been discussing.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_sin.aspx

[kosta50]

I have seen "[sic]" used either way, but thanks for the link. As for Qua, his presentation improved since then, although his choice of words hasn't.

[kosta50]

I point out that observation of flying and falling objects does not support gravity as we know it to operate, but observation of the Creation confirms our faith in God every time we open our eyes

And I point out that observing the Creation does not support God as we believe He is, or as He operates. In fact, the more I look at Creation, the more I realize that we do not design or make anything that resembles it. So, the revelation that God's ways and thoughts are not ours, is quite obvious to me -- which leads me to believe that everything we say we know about God is probably not the way He is, or how He operates — but how we imagine it.

By the way, when the Japanese look at the Creation they don't see Creation, they see "God." They say God is nature, not God created Nature. We look at the Creation and see an expression of God's creativity, but not God. And that, my friend, is a belief based on our theology, as our interpretation of gravity is based on our belief in scientific method. So, in both cases, we have a different "system" that was devised by man. That much is clear by looking at various religions and "Scriptures."

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "So when your leaders declare Biblical spiritual truths, they are not from God? Very interesting."

My leaders? Please, take me to my leaders, FK. Biblical spiritual truths come from the Faith alone, and the Faith comes from God.

I have been told a hundred times that for you Biblical spiritual truths do not come from faith alone, instead they come from the Church, or faith in the Church, i.e. your leaders. I have been told, in effect, that you would be lost without the Church to give you spiritual truths. How can this be "Faith alone" from God? Anticipating your response, do you have the same faith in the Church that you have in God?

You Protestants have substituted the Church (from which you were thrown out by your own heresy) with a Bible -- which exists in the form you use because of the very Church you deny.

Yes, "us" Protestants do put the Bible over fallible men. Horrors! :) You can give the Church credit for the Bible all you want, I give the credit to God.

But there is one thing no one can argue with when it comes to the New Testament: it's spiritual message, apart from all the events, facts and parables. Whether you believe or do not believe, the spiritual message is loud and clear -- ...

I agree that the spiritual message is loud and clear. I just think that the power of the message loses something important if it is divorced from the truth of the vehicle. That is, unless it is clear from the context that the vehicle is intentionally metaphorical, such as with parables. How can the hearer fully appreciate the message if he constantly has to decide which parts are fact and which parts are fiction?

For example, what does the rainbow mean to you? We all know that God made a covenant with Noah, but is the rainbow His seal? If not, then does God seal any of His covenants, or is that important? If God doesn't use seals, then were there literally two stone tablets or not? If not, then what was carried in the Ark of the Covenant, or did it even exist? You get my drift, what is a poor Christian to do if he has no idea what to believe in?

[Forest Keeper]

I find the belief in the sinlessness of St. John the Baptist entirely natural. I don't know why it is not dogmatic. Perhaps, because the parallel to the Ark of the Covenant, that is not to be touched by human hand, is absent in his case.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. Jesus was touched by human hand.

FK: " ... this elevates John over Mary ..."

Not really, Jesus has prophets in view in that passage, and not His Mother.

Matt. 11:11 : "I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

Then why does He use the qualifier "born of women" if He does not mean all people? Which prophets were not born of women? In addition, Mary was born of a woman.

[kosta50]

I have been told a hundred times that for you Biblical spiritual truths do not come from faith alone, instead they come from the Church, or faith in the Church, i.e. your leaders

The Church reflects spiritual truths of God's revelation (through the Holy Tradition), and safeguards them as they were at the time the Church was formed.

The Bible is meaningless without the faith. To a Jew, the New Testament is not a Scripture. In order for me to witness the truth of Christ, I have to believe in Him. He is the source of Christian faith.

[Forest Keeper]

I don't understand why John 20:23 is not sufficient for you. Can it get any plainer that that?

Speaking just for myself, I will admit that this one is more difficult to interpret as to "match" the rest of my theology. I don't feel secure enough to pronounce a slam dunk, as I would in other cases. :) But ultimately, we have a plain meaning apparent contradiction between this and Mark 2:7. Something has to give via interpretation. Naturally, we will both choose the interpretation that matches. And, I think that to an unbiased judge, a credible case could be made for either view.

[Forest Keeper]

Every Catholic knows people who are excommunicated because of a second marriage, not being able to annul the first, people who go through years of supplying evidence and giving testimony and leading a chaste life so that they can marry after divorce. Divorce is a tragedy, and the Church sees it as tragedy, precisely because marriage is sacred. Disagree with the annulment system all you want, but cheap out it is not.

You're right, I went overboard there. I apologize to you, Joe, and to you, Alex, and to all Catholics. I should not have said what I said. The whole issue just stirs emotions in me based on an anecdote, the details of which I am not at liberty to share. But that is no excuse, I was wrong.

[Forest Keeper]

The patristic evidence is simply the sacred deposit of faith. It is not the issue of popularity; in fact, much of the patristic literature was written when the Arianism was the majority faith.

All I know about Arianism is that it denied the divinity of Christ, and it was kinda sorta related to Gnosticism. I didn't know it was ever a majority "faith".

When I said "popularity", I think I was mainly referring to within the Church. I know I have been told that any individual, or even any individual Father, could have and did think and write things that are now considered wrong. However, if enough of the clergy got together and agreed that something was right, then it could be declared either infallible, or dogma, doctrine, or discipline. (I think maybe you taught me that. :) Anyway, I was just saying that because I have a different view of the authority of the Magisterium, that I thought that not only is any one man capable of error, but that also any one group of men is also capable of error.

[annalex]

We look at the Creation and see an expression of God's creativity, but not God

Ah, there is quite the symmetry I was talking about. We see things fall and theorize that is gravity operating. And we also see the created world and theorize that is God operating. Neither is a direct observation of the underlying operator, but both are equally reliable observations of the operator's effects.

[annalex]

touched by human hand.

The analogy is between the Ark of the Covenant, which contained the Word and Mary, who carried the Word in her womb. The Ark of the Covenant was not to bee seen, let alone touched, except by high priests. This is how the Old Testament foreshadows Mary's perpetual virginity. There is no similar parallel with John the Baptist, as there is nothing in the line of Hebrew prophets that indicates sinlessness.

born of women

Regardless of the epithet, the context and the thrust of Christ's speech there is to explain that John the Baptist is the greatest of prophets. Of course as a prophet he is greater than Mary, as she is no prophet at all. It is a different dimension of comparison altogether.

[annalex]

I disagree, because John 20:23 speaks directly to the issue, while Mark 2:7 is a rhetorical question posed by the Pharisees, that Christ chose not to answer in sufficient detail right then and there. The relation to the question, can Christ delegate the power to forgive sin to others? -- is only lateral in Mark 2:7

[annalex]

I thought so, and on my end I will readily believe that there are anecdotes about annulment that scandalize the Church. It is not a perfect world.