-Short Order Blogmaster

I have to take exception with your comments that Erasmus was a softy–even though he admits he is “no wrestler.” I also have to take exception to your comments “God didn’t pick Erasmus; He picked Luther. Luther will have to do.”

First refuting of your statements–”Peace at any price” I don’t know if Erasmus was about Peace at Any Price–he was friends with Thomas More, and I would hardly think this friendship brought Erasmus peace (especially when in the presence of blustering Henry VIII). And as I recall, being friends with Thomas More wasn’t the most peaceful think in England.

As to Erasmus not being a Reformer? He was all about reform. He eschewed the trappings of wealth that could have come with his taking high church office, taking instead the poverty that came with being a scholar/monk (not that he never got out). He as a Reformer–a top drawer Reformer–and his writings landed on the Banned Book List just as fast as Luther.

As to Luther’s calling by God–it is not refutable if the opinion is rooted in existentialism. Luther’s claims cannot be verified, except that his reaction to them was to act–and to place his life on the line for his new found “Sola Scriptura” stand. However, if you are a modern evangalica, you might take exception with Luther’s canon which excluded James and Revelation–and his Anthropology, which cannot make up its mind whether an unbaptized person is lost or the recipient of prevenient grace . . .

Whether Luther was genuinly called directly by God is a subject of subjective debate (one which I will not engage in–you should have caught me about 10 years ago, when I would have welcomed such an exchange).
Maybe it is better to say that his Royal champions (I can’t think of his patron) and his successor Malancthon promoted Luther to Prophet status–it certainly could not have been Luther’s personality.

Furthermore, I believe Luther treated those who would not follow him in a similar way to those who followed Rome–

BTW, have you read Luther and Erasmus’ debate? Or more than one Erasmus essay? I think if you approach these with an open mind, you will have a breakthrough similar to mine–confessing with great internal release that Erasmus ought to bear the title Great Reformer.

Thank you for your response,

Logiopath

Steve

I think it is a simplification to say “Gnostics prefered spirit to flesh.” Gnosticism, as I understand it from Dodd’s The Fourth Gospel, is similar to Plato’s view of God. That behind the scenes of what we see is God, whom we cannot know or see. The ones doing the work are the Arcons (demigogues or demigods) who act on behalf of the will of the universe, or God behind the scenes.

James Montgomery Boice notes that the Gnostics thought of themselves as ‘knowing ones’.” Part of this was to say that Jesus was not actually incarnate in the flesh. John’s Gospel answers this (and Dodd points out is actually paralleling Gnosticism, rather than combating) by saying “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory as the only Begotten of the Father.”

Anyway, I think we forget Jesus’ incarnation because it is a messy proposition.

Boy, we’ve come a long way from Luther and Erasmus, haven’t we?

Ambrosia

My brother in law, a very conservative, fundamentalist evangelical (whew! what a mouthful) is waiting impatiently for the second coming, when he and his family and hopefully many of his friends will meet the Lord in the air. There is a sense of despair and hopelessness for this planet and by association his life as well. He looks forward to the day when the non-believers and the sinners will get their cumuppence. In spite of this, he is still a pretty good guy.

Of course the problem here is that Christ said the we were going to be in for a big surprise. I’d wager that there are going to be some pretty disappointed fans of Jenkins and LaHaye.

Ambrosia

I still consider myself to be an evangelical, but I guess that I might not fit the bill any longer. (Although I really do think it is all about the Good News and not the Bad News that so many preach)

I believe that is the root of pre-tribulationism. I am not saying this is the view Darby, since I don’t have a quote. But the idea that “this world is not my home” seems to prevail in the anecdotes I have heard in many an evangelical/fundementalist circle.

I am going to call on Calvinist scholar Gordon Spykman, late of Calvin College in Michigan. Spykman sets the battle in array by pointing out the tension between the biblical promise of a restored paradise, verses the various desires and schemes that have come down the way during the millennia. One example of this is the fight over the nature of the believer’s choice in salvation that ruled the later part of the Reformation period (See The Synod of Dort and The Writings of Arminius, Volume I for primary source material on this debate). Spykman writes that the Calvinists lost their vision: “This quest for assurance of salvation took center stage so completely that it left eschatological issues waiting in the wings.”

Anyway, the fundementalists became pundits of eschatology, as Spykman notes, with the advent of the Scofield Reference Bible, “masses of evangelical Christians set out to recover lost ground.”

Okay, what does this have to do with the flesh/spirit/etc. controversy?

The 20th century was a dangerous time to be alive–and an equally exciting time. However, for the period from 1918 through 1945 (and beyond) the average person faced a cycle of deep poverty, cataclysmic war, political uncertainty–and this cycle repeated itself–culminating in the horrific events of Vietnam, and eventually the 911 attacks (I know, that’s the 21 century–but I’m on a roll here). It was natural to look for an escape.
So, as the need for escape grew, so did eschatological schemes. As the schemes grew in popularity, intellectual voices from seminaries (and other sources) joined the debate. Unfortunately, many evangelicals adopted the attitude “when the trumpet sounds, I’m out of here!” and other sloganized doctrines.

As a result of this, and the backlash to the immorality of earth’s cultures, Christians (especially in the United States) wanted out. The out included demonizing things that were good, like God’s creation, in preparation for the rapture. Somehow, the doctrines spread that only “true Christians” would go, so you’d better be ready. “You’d better not be listening to secular music when Jesus comes, or you’ll be in trouble” was the mentality that spread.

Anyway, this can be easily called “gnostic fundementalism.” Declare the flesh evil in order to make one’s self ready for the rapture.

Now you see why I took the moniker Logiopath. I’m crazy about words.

Ambrosia

Yes to the first; I’m not sure about the second. My thinking on this came after we were asked to leave our church because we held to an old-earth creation view. The pastor put it in very clear terms that science was not a valid way to evaluate Scripture. You either accept Genesis as written (i.e., 24-hour creation days) or you reject it in favor of science. My thinking was that the Creation revealed the Creator, but he didn’t buy that. His position was that science was valid only as far as it confirmed [his interpretation of] Scripture.

That put me in mind of an earlier study of Gnostic heresies, which emphasized the spiritual over the physical. I’m not sure that it’s valid to say that evangelicalism is inherently Gnostic, but it certainly appears that there are parallel concepts.

I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath as there is much good in evangelical Christianity. Not everyone in that camp has their knickers in a wad all the time. But I would like to develop this further and will put up a post in the next few days. Feel free to blog it yourself.

Is that aspect of Fundamentalism that looks upon the flesh as evil, is that what we are talking about? Is it legitimate to make this accusation?

Reject the flesh (not really) see faith as “pure spirit,” exalt virginity (make sex icky) and create a world that does not (and will never) exist. Sounds like Gnostics.

Lemme have at this a little, and I’ll come up with a dinger. I heard, from Dr. Ralph Gore of Erskine Seminary (through some tapes from a mail order seminary I used to “attend”) that the Eastern Church was very gnostic–interested in mystical relationships and trying to guess the nature of God. Gore says, in counter to the East, that the West was more concerned with the judicial relationship between God, the judge, and man.

Okay–we think the judicial triumphed–but I would argue otherwise.

Modern evangelicals place the judicial relationship as the initiation rite into the body of believers. Nothing particularly mystical happens, except the rebirth (however that works). The rest of the time is spent trying some form of mysticism or another. All of the mysticism, whether pentecostal on one extreme, or those who reject and say the Bible is the means of God speaking on the other extreme, is earned (that’s right, I said earned) on the basis of righteous living. The cleaner the vessel, the reasoning says, the more insight into God (or from God).

Steve, I too am a recovering fundamentalist/evangelical, and I feel guilty telling you. I’ve been a Baptist, an AGer, a Four Square, a Calvary Chapel-ite, and Bible Church member. For the most part, these churches either impart a course of legalism, or try to prove they are not. For the most part, they duck any attempt at a rational view of history. They exalt such folks as Sir Robert Anderson (for interpretations of time) the Plymouth Brethren guy (for pre-tribulation) and reject intellectualism and any form of biblical criticism.

Anyway, let the conversation continue.

Ambrosia

I know a great book, but it is a little heady. It is called The Fourth Gospel by C. H. Dodd.

Steve

Anyway, I have to admit I am a great admirer of Erasmus. His voice comes through loud and clear amidst all of the noise of history. If you want to have an enjoyable and somewhat entertaining intellectual journey, read some of his pieces that include Enchirdion, The Complaint of Peace, and In Praise of Folly. If you like to write, try some of the exercises in rhetoric Erasmus has left for us in Copia. And if your read the Bible–his contributions to the King James (not directly) and other modern translations are invaluable.

Thank you for the comments, and I’m glad I could be of some help.

Ambrosia