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

I have always "liked" the comparison to how we experience the sun. We all experience the sun's light, the sun's heat, and the sun's radiation. All three "are" the sun, but we experience them in different ways

That is one way to understand it, but it is difficult for us to relate to the sun as anything we resemble. Humans are created in a trinitarian model in that we possess the wisdom (intellect), that generates words, through which the spirit of your mind becomes evident. All three are one in essence (nature), that is human, all three are perceived as separate entities, yet one being, all three are interrelated and indivisible.

Thus I know there is someone called FK, I know that he or she is human, I know your mind only trough your words (you can come to the Father/Wisdom only through the Son/Word!), and your words send out what can be described as the spirit of FK's person.

We need not look farther than humanity to find God's signature.

FK, I found this on a Bahai site, of all places. It speaks about apophatic theology and Byzantine contemplative theology. Give it a read and it may give you some insight into where the likes of Kosta and I are coming from. By the way, the "Pelikan" the author refers to is Yaroslav Pelikan, a great modern theologian who converted from Lutheranism to Orthodoxy.

Your four Scripture verses don't say anything about CHRIST'S righteousness covering anything. The sense of those Scriptures is that God removes sin from us as the east is from the west. To cover something, as per Luther would have it, means that our sinfulness STILL REMAINS, but is covered from view of God.

My intent was your sense of those scriptures. I do not claim to be a defender of everything Luther ever said or held, I am by no means qualified to do so even if I wanted. I am a firm believer in "the old has gone, the new has come". Christ "covers" us by removing the old nature and covering the remnant of sin. He is our advocate at judgment and also "covers" us.

I responded to that idea 1000 posts ago...Love doesn't automatically flow from faith. Otherwise, why does Paul say in 1 Cor 13:2 that even the greatest of faith, to move mountains, is nothing without love? If such a great faith has NOT love, then it is quiet logical to say that Paul did NOT consider love as an automatic outpouring.

Then I ask for 1000 pardons for my short term memory. The whole issue here is what is meant by "faith". The love Paul is talking about here is clearly agape love, and he is separating this love from faith for the example. He is saying that if you have faith without love, then your faith isn't genuine (Godly). Paul believes that true faith has love in it. How can our "faith" lead us to Christ without love? Paul knows this and so his teaching is that a cerebral belief is not enough. Love does automatically flow from true faith because it is already there.

And secondly, WHY is good works even necessary in the Protestant scheme, as I understand you to say? WHAT IS becoming sanctified? Are you becoming sanctified, being made holy? If so, then what is going on with imputed righteousness above? Seems like you are saying two different things. Sanctification makes us holy, but if we are covered, a once-saved Christian shouldn't really care - since no matter how "sanctified" he becomes, he still has already achieved heaven.

Good works are a fruit of salvation and an obedience to God, like baptism. ... Becoming sanctified is a life-long, post-salvation process of maturing in faith and becoming more like Christ. ... Yes, I am becoming sanctified and being made more holy. ... I do not know what is going on with your "imputed righteousness". You made it up. ... God saves sinners, not holy people. Therefore, we need sanctification. Again, good works pleasing to God are a fruit of salvation.

So where does sanctification fit into all this? Why do you need "evidence" of your salvation IF you are assuredly of the elect??? Seems a contradiction, or at least a false hope, doesn't it?

I do not know what you mean by "need" or "evidence". ...I have no false hope, it is all in Christ.

And what happens to a person who is disobedient to God's commands? From what you seem to be saying, sanctification doesn't fit into the heavenly equation whatsoever. It appears to be something given to make our lives better here on earth ONLY. Yes?

No. A regenerated heart loves God. One who loves God obeys Him. Sanctification teaches HOW to do that. Sanctification fits perfectly into the heavenly equation.

Me: In an understandable sense, being "imputed" righteousness does not make one righteous in FACT, but it does make one righteous in God's eyes and judgment.

You can't possibly mean that! We aren't righteous in fact but we are in God's eyes? Is God like Isaac, whom Rebekah covered up Jacob with a skin to hide who Jacob really was? Is this the Protestant idea of God? NOTHING unclean will enter heaven! NOTHING. Brother, we must become righteous, more so than the scribes and Pharisees, said God Himself. With God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

I was trying to interpret your made up term. ... For Protestants, the Kingdom of Heaven is not like Rebekah covering up Jacob in a lie. ... My point was that our righteousness in God's eyes is not from ourselves, we don't earn it or do good works for it. When you said "impute", I thought of "gift". That's what I think our salvation is, an unmerited gift.

Your last statement wrapped up your post perfectly.

harleyd-Peter considered Paul's writings inspired.

jokus-You are not correct. Not only were some books called into question, other communities considered OTHER books as inspired. For example, the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians was considered SCRIPTURE

I don't know the history of Clement and don't have time to look it up. However, if correct the very fact that Clement's works were read in mass for over 250 years makes no difference. I would suspect if I pulled up his mass he refers a great deal of his message to the scriptures-the INSPIRED SCRIPTURES. I would also venture to guess that you won't find him breaking new grounds with the Shepherd of Hermes. Clement's mass reading is no different than me reading a sermon by Charles Spurgeon or you reading a sermon (or whatever you call it) by Pope Paul.

Wrong again, Harley. Two Peter was a controversial epistle. It was not accepted by the majority of Christian Fathers until much later

But the very fact that people begin to compile their own ideas of what Scripture was (such as Athanasius' Easter Sermon, or Marcion) forced the Church to settle any disputes....The Bible didn't determine the Church's doctrine. It merely helped to define it.

There wasn't a massive rebellion on controversial books. The Church had strict guidelines for what should and should not be included. According to what I’ve been told by you and others on the Eucharist, the Eucharist was always the teaching of the Church and the Church merely confirmed it. However, this logic does not apply to the scripture where great controversies existed in formulating the Bible and the Church had to make some decisions as to what should be kept and what should be rejected. Yet after the issue was decided almost 2000 years ago you still are saying you have some doubt about 2 Peter. Do you have any doubts about the Eucharist? What nonsense!!!

That is certainly not how Christians read the Gospels, whether it is you (FK) or me. For example, when Jesus says "if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off, for it is better to enter the Kingdom of God..." Does any Christian take that literally? No ... HOWEVER, if we were to take the Scriptures as God's LITERAL WORD, we WOULD have to actually cut off our hand!!!

First, I agree with what the Pope said about Islam. Thank goodness we Protestants don't think anything like that in this context. The scriptures ARE God's LITERAL WORD. Inside that literal word, God shows us that there are times when we are to take the word literally, and other times when we are to interpret. This idea is self contained in the Bible. One example are the parables of Jesus. Inside scripture itself, Jesus interprets His own parable, thus telling us clearly how we are to treat His own teaching. The trick is getting it right, but God proves that interpretation is sometimes necessary, and we Protestants fully know that.

What we have in the Bible is a compilation of books that happen to expound and verify the oral teachings given. Orthodox men of the Church read all the writings, looked at what they had been taught, and said "yep, the writing we call 'Gospel of Matthew' is from God, the writing called 'Gospel of Thomas' is a not from God". THAT is why the Scriptures have a wonderful uniformity.

I would respectfully disagree that the books of the Bible expound and verify the oral teachings (overall), because so many of them aren't there. I continue to ask "why is that?" I also reiterate that no man had any kind of a 'yup' or 'nope' vote in what went into the Bible. It was rigged from the beginning. When it came to the importance of the written way mankind would ever know God, He didn't nudge, He didn't take any chances or rely on luck of good human decisions, He went and got what He wanted. Thank God.

I am responding to your rant. I see you write another letter to me regarding this subject. I will answer here.

Your whole misunderstanding of the development of the Canon stems on your inability to understand the word DEVELOPMENT. The Church of 200 AD didn't just wake up one day and universally say "Hey, we got 27 books that are inspired by God". There was a gradual process of acceptance. The KEY to this acceptance is whether a writing WAS indeed from an Apostle or a close acquaintance. However, this was a rule of thumb, not set in stone. As in other Catholic development of doctrine, you will find a gradual understanding in a particular belief by the faithful - which leads to a clash between this understanding and one who disagrees with it (e.g. Arius vs. Church). In the same manner, the Church was compelled to define what was Scripture in an official sense.

Much of your idea regarding 2 Peter, for example, is destroyed, considering that the Church of 100-250 AD did NOT universally accept Peter's authorship of 2 Peter. For example, Eusebius writes about Origen:

"...And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail' (Matt. 16:18), has left one acknowledged Epistle; possibly also a second, but this is disputed. (6.25.8)

Isn't it clear that the greatest Church historian of the day noted that it was DISPUTED as late as 250 AD??? Eusebius further writes in the Canon of Eusebius:

These, then, [are to placed] among the recognized books {Eusebius had listed some NT books}. Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second and Third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another of the same name.

Seems you are incorrect regarding the ability of people to agree on what WAS Scripture... 5 of 27 are disputed here, and Revelation in a following quote. That is 20% of the letters that are found in TODAY'S NT Bible were questioned by people. Also, this same writer questions other writings that some accept, but are later rejected by the authority of the Church.

Eusebius continues...

Among the spurious books must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teaching of the Apostles [Didache] , as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seems right. (This last as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books.)

And finally, he continues:

Now all these would be among the disputed books; but nevertheless we have felt compelled to make this catalogue of them, distinguishing between those writings which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true and genuine and recognized, from the others which differ from them in that they are not canonical, but disputed, yet nevertheless are known to most churchmen. [And this we have done] in order that we might be able to know both these same writings and also those which the heretics put forward under the name of the apostles; including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or even of some others besides these, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles. To none of these has any who belonged to the succession of ecclesiastical writers ever thought it right to refer in his writings.

Look carefully at the last quote. Note, there are some writings that CLAIM to be from Apostles, but are not recognized. They are not spurious, but HERETICAL. In the Scriptures, Paul HIMSELF warns others to beware of forgeries and false writings purported to be from him, such as 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; Col 4:18; 2 Thes 2:2; 2 Thes 3:17. The early Church, then, had to deal with such problems as false writings. Just because someone stamped "Peter" on it doesn't mean it was accepted. The Church compared the writings to what teachings they had received from the Apostles. If they didn't match, the writings must have been heretical and were to be discarded. Isn't that clear enough?

Once the Church sat down at the various Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome, the Canon was determined by the Church - infallibly so at Trent, reaffirming the earlier Councils. When the Church speaks infallibly, there is no "when if we messed up". NO ONE is going to declare that 2/3 of the NT is suspect - whom we will listen to.

We certainly believe that the Bible is inspired! But first, the Church must RECOGNIZE God's teachings among the writings. How? They compared it with what they had been taught. The Apostolic Tradition encompassed both the writings and the oral teachings of the Apostles. They MUST match - they must teach the same things, either explicitly or implicitly. Thus, with the Body of Teaching that they had, they were able to discard spurious or heretical books. They did this under the form of a Council, protected by the Holy Spirit. If we believe that Christ promised to protect the Truth of the Faith of the Church for all time, then we believe the determination made by these councils. Future "what about's" are pointless - God is Truth, His Church is the pillar of this truth, Christ being the foundation. (Eph 2:20).

Rather than accuse Catholics of not being faithful to the inerrancy of the Scriptures, their inspiration from God (which we certainly do), you should consider why you do not trust the promise made by Jesus Christ to believe that He gave the truth of the faith to the leaders of the Church (Eph 3:5; Mat 16:18; 2 Tim 2:2; and so forth). Why do you think Christ lied to His Church?

Regards

God caused the Bible to be written in the same way God cause every other holy deed: hymns composed, liturgies put together, cathedrals built, etc. In all cases the human authors were moved by the Holy Ghost and produced a miracle. It is the Church operating through its councils, in its inerrancy, that selected the writings that are inspired and left others as a supplement.

I would respectfully disagree that a beautiful hymn has the same hand of God behind it that the book of John does. Do you see all hymns composed, liturgies written, and cathedrals built as definitionally perfect? (Do you see the Bible as definitionally perfect?) It appears that you believe that God turned over His authority to select His written revelation to man, to the Church. I would say He retained His authority for Himself. Is the Church a greater authority than the Bible?

In the case of the New Testament we have clear signals that at least some of the books are writings for private consumption. Luke writes his gospel to Theofilus, who has already received instruction in the living Word to confirm him in his knowledge (Luke 1:1-4).

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, but by this reasoning, aren't all Paul's letters written to specific audiences, and are thus not applicable to the rest of us Christians? Do we need to pay heed to anything in James since he only wrote to Jewish Christians?

Ultimately, the test of correctness is whether a holy work brings people to Christ.

If you and I met the same man, and we each gave him an opposite teaching, would you judge the correctness of the teaching by which of us convinced the man? That can't be right. We even define "coming to Christ" differently. I would say the test of correctness is whether God says it's true.

Protestant baptisms are valid (excepting some fringe denominations). In fact, in an emergency, anyone, even a non-Christian can perform valid baptism.

Thanks for your answer. It's funny, my wife and I are fans of the show "Lost". This situation just came up on their isolated island. If you're not a fan, someone had a vision that the baby needed to be baptized in case something terrible happened, so that the baby's soul would be safe. The only one available who claimed to be qualified did know some scripture, but was actually a hardened drug dealer, killer, etc., and was unconvincing as a Christian, but did have redeeming qualities. The sprinkling was done by the drug dealer, and the music told us that it was successful. Since the brother of the drug dealer actually was a legitimate priest (clarifying that this was supposed to be Catholic), I laughed with my wife on whether Catholics would like this portrayal or not. :) I honestly don't know.

Historically, the public school system in America was promulgated in 19 century in order to offset the influence the Catholic Church had in primary education.

Well, I don't know the history, but I can tell you that among non-Catholics, today, your best buddies in the world are evangelical Protestants in promoting faith-based education.

This pattern, that an individual can decide for himself what the Natural law in his heart says, follows the Protestant pattern where the individual can decide for himself what the Divine Law says. The apostolic churches believe that the Church is the deposit of Divine Law and is the only source of moral law, no matter what the democratic sentiment is at any moment.

I don't agree this is a valid criticism. Under communism, everyone is bound to follow the hierarchy. The will of the spirits of the people is subjugated to the State because only the State has the authority to proclaim truth. Violation of any doctrine of the hierarchy subjects a person to severe punishment. Therefore, it is clear that Catholicism is like communism. Have I treated you fairly? :) I also think NOT!

We do not believe that truth is determined by a vote of men. I could argue that is what you believe! We do not believe that we decide for ourselves what is truth. I understand that you believe that God has deposited "the truth" into the hands of a very select few men. We believe that God has done the same thing, but just to "more" men. :)

God in his sovereign omnipotence allows us to make decisions and he foreknows our decisions, and makes plans in that foreknowledge.

Therefore, you admit that God's plans are DEPENDENT, in a mathematical sense, on human decisions.

First, I agree with what the Pope said about Islam. Thank goodness we Protestants don't think anything like that in this context. The scriptures ARE God's LITERAL WORD. Inside that literal word, God shows us that there are times when we are to take the word literally, and other times when we are to interpret.

You are contradicting yourself. If the Bible is the LITERAL WORD of God, there is NO ROOM for INTERPRETATION. It is ALWAYS to be taken literally! Thus, the literal word of cutting off your hand is NOT to be understood as hyperbole. It is God's LITERAL WORD! I would understand that most Protestants do not consider the Scipture as God's literal word, but God speaking THROUGH the writers to convy His inerrant teachings to mankind. Thus, God's inerrant writings are subject to interpretation by the Church, changing meaning over time in some cases (since God speaks to men of different ages and cultures). Thus, taking oaths or money from loans, or polygamy are not indefinite literal commands.

I would respectfully disagree that the books of the Bible expound and verify the oral teachings (overall), because so many of them aren't there. I continue to ask "why is that?"

Partially answered above. God's inerrant word comes to us through Scripture. But God taught man to teach other men the proper WAY of interpretating Scriptures - for men of today. An authoritative body, put together and empowered by Christ, IS the sign of authority of Christ on earth, not the Bible. A book CANNOT interpret itself! The Church treasured the writings of the Apostles - who had long ago died. They compiled the writings they left. Found within the Scriptures is all we need to know for salvation - BUT, it is not always clearly and explicitly laid out. For example - prayers to saints in heaven to intercede for us. It is based on Scripture and was obviously a teaching of the Apostles. To cull out these "hidden" meanings in Scripture requires a Body of Teaching first. Then, we can point to Scripture and say, "yes, it is within Scriptures dictates and is allowed and expected that we DO ask for the prayers of other Christians, including those who have physically died".

This same authoritative Body teaches that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ. Can you find a time before 1000 AD where this was not taught? No. It is Scriptural and it was believed by Christians everywhere. But a Protestant, reading the Scriptures (like the Ethiopian of Acts) without help of the Church, comes up with the spiritual-only interpretation.

The problem, then, is that you accept the authority of Scriptures, but not the same body who wrote and collated it - identifying and verifying it, that the Bible is, INDEED, the Word of God. How can a fallible group of men determine what are infallible writings and infallibly compile them into one book? Without making ONE mistake? Recall that Jesus left an authoritative group of men, not a book.

I also reiterate that no man had any kind of a 'yup' or 'nope' vote in what went into the Bible. It was rigged from the beginning

Men throughout the Church could not agree on 2 Peter, for example, and whether it was inspired. This went on past 250 AD! God made His "decision" through men. That's the way God works. If the Bible came to us like you say, it would have fell from the sky, a la Koran, and there would have been NO dispute. Here is a table that shows that the Church from 100 AD did not automatically "recognize" what was Scripture and what wasn't!:

http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

this site has a lot of good info and quotes on the development of the NT into one book.

Regards

I am a firm believer in "the old has gone, the new has come". Christ "covers" us by removing the old nature and covering the remnant of sin. He is our advocate at judgment and also "covers" us.

Fair enough, but again, if Christ ONLY covers us, it means that we still are unrighteous, dirty, wretched humans. Covering something is not the same thing as removing sin from us, is it? Thus, rid yourself of that Lutheran error. Because of Christ, we are MADE righteous in God's eyes - not because of anything we do, but by the grace of God. We will not be covered but dirty humans entering into heaven!

He is saying that if you have faith without love, then your faith isn't genuine (Godly). Paul believes that true faith has love in it. How can our "faith" lead us to Christ without love? Paul knows this and so his teaching is that a cerebral belief is not enough. Love does automatically flow from true faith because it is already there.

The point I am making that having faith alone does not save. It must be faith with love. Faith alone has no love. This was Luther's mistake, again. If you include love within your definition of faith, I think we'd agree that - however, I would say that love is not "generated" by faith, but by Christ within us. EVERYTHING is a gift from God. Thus, our faith and our love during a specific action (say, giving a glass of water to someone) is from God. The faith is necessary before the love can come forth. But both come from God.

I do not know what is going on with your "imputed righteousness". You made it up. ...

Imputed rightousness means that Christ's own righteousness is used to cover our own depraved selves. You have stated this on several occasions! Let's take the logic to its awful conclusion, shall we? IF Christ covers us up - no matter how bad we are (or good), what is the point of trying to become more holy? If we have a ticket for a nice new coat when we enter heaven (sinner's prayer, correct?), then why IS sanctification important? Tell me WHY it matters if I am a little dirty or very dirty UNDER that coat that allows me entrance into heaven???

I do not know what you mean by "need" or "evidence". ...I have no false hope, it is all in Christ

You have said that works are merely a fruit, evidence of salvation. Why do you need this evidence, when you already "know" you are saved by your sinner's prayer? What is the purpose of having fruit to prove your salvation?

A regenerated heart loves God. One who loves God obeys Him. Sanctification teaches HOW to do that. Sanctification fits perfectly into the heavenly equation.

I sense a contradiction in what is being said, or I am misunderstanding you. You believe you are of the elect, that you cannot fall, that your name cannot be blotted out. This is due to your sinner's prayer, as further evidenced by the fruits of salvation, your good works. Correct me if I am wrong so far. Now. IF Christ covers me because of the above, I am the elect, how does sanctification fit into the heavenly equation? Furthermore, what about those who DO NOT obey God, even though they have made the sinner's prayer? Does this say that the sinner's prayer does not infallibly tell us that we are saved? Ugh...

My point was that our righteousness in God's eyes is not from ourselves, we don't earn it or do good works for it. When you said "impute", I thought of "gift". That's what I think our salvation is, an unmerited gift.

We both agree that salvation is an unmerited gift. Nothing I do alone can earn it. Let's work from there. You believe that you are IMPUTED righteousness. This is a legal definition - you are CALLED righteous, although you are not. Under the covering of Christ, you still remain the same sinful depraved human being. Versus this is INFUSED righteousness. Here, Catholics (and I believe Methodists and such, to a degree) believe that God actually CHANGES US! We begin the sanctification process, thus, the need for it. We slowly become more "like" Christ by becoming more holy - none of which is from ourselves. GOD is changing us into a new creation. Thus, it is not just a legal fiction. We ARE becoming more holy - which is a necessity to enter heaven. By the faith and love infused within us by the Spirit, we become pleasing in God's eyes, preparing us to share eternal life with Him in heaven.

Regards

Not only much of the New Testament is private correspondence, but its incompleteness is expressly stated, see John 21:25.

I fully believe in John 21:25, I just don't believe that everything left that was taught was necessarily true because men said so. As Jo said, I understand that the Apostles who didn't get books in the Bible nevertheless went out and preached and taught. There is no denying. So, I believe that there might be plenty of stuff that is not explicitly in the Bible that is sound under Christianity, but it must pass the test of the Bible in its totality.

My problem is that then you'll list all your traditions, ask me to prove they are explicitly unbiblical, and then, if I can't to your satisfaction, declare them as all true because your hierarchy says so. Obviously, there are a multitude of theological paradigms upon which we would disagree in interpretation, and none of us is alone in his views.

We look at the same verse and I see something different from your leaders. I can live with that, because I believe I know Who is looking out for me. I fully respect that you know Who is looking out for you, too, through the Church. I expect to learn many new teachings throughout my life (sanctification), and all I say is GREAT! I'll just be a better witness the next time. There is no inconsistency here because no perfection is claimed, due to me.

There is no inconsistency here because no perfection is claimed, due to me.

That's the great thing about having an infallible teaching Church. When people claim that the Virgin Mary wasn't a Virgin, the Church can say infallibly "you are wrong". When people say that the Eucharist is not the Real Presence of Christ, citing something about not drinking blood, the Church can say, "this is what we believe. You misunderstand the OT Scriptures".

I don't have to be infallible. But what I have been taught as dogmatically true has been given to us from God Himself through a visible instrument. The Scriptures, also; through a visible instrument. Thankfully, we don't have to wander around considering such difficult things - we just run to the Church and find out what she teaches. The Bride of Christ cannot fail. Thus, I have assuredness of God's teachings and means to come to Him.

Regards

God's plan (to have man in paradise in communion with Him) is accomplished. God is not waiting on us. For sure, He sees man in paradise with Him -- at the beginning and in the end at the same "time." That will not change. God has offered to save all, but apparently not all will take the offer and follow Him.

You say that God sees everything from beginning to end at the same time. OK, and freeing God from any time constraints :), some people wind up in heaven, some wind up in hell. God creates us all. God already knows what our choices will be. God creates Susie, but simultaneously in time, already knows that Susie will not chose Him. Thus, Susie is, in truth, doomed. God, who knows this, creates her anyway. Is this not a heartless God by your standards? :) Did God love Susie, knowing that she would wind up in hell, given that God had the full power and authority to prevent it? If God could harden Pharaoh's heart, then certainly He could have touched Susie's in a certain way, but He didn't. What does this mean?

Thus, Susie is, in truth, doomed. God, who knows this, creates her anyway. Is this not a heartless God by your standards?

This goes back to your earlier question about God being "active" in our lives. God is active in our lives if we ask Him to be. I have stated this earlier: Love does not impose. God does not arm twist people into believing.

God sends His blessings. If we all followed God in His likeness, this world wold be as close to paradise as it gets. We have the potential to make such a world; but we don't have the likeness of God to accomplish it.

In the corrupt world, some accept His blessings, others turn them into vehicles of evil. But He rewards the righteous and the unrighteous, as is clearly evident.

In your all-controlling ego-maniac God who has to control every human being to His satisfaction, He is actually threatened by man's free will, for it somehow "diminishes" His omnipotence. That is a man speaking imagining to be God. You are projecting the passions and weaknesses of man onto God. This is the ultimate humanism: God must conform to human standards! His justice must conform to human justice.

God did not give us a mind so He can control it. God did not give us dominion over this world so He can take it away from us. God did not create us free so He can take that freedom away. If we are to be in His image and in His likeness -- we must have dominion over our world and freedom to choose.

But He did not abandon us. We separate from Him; not the other way around. If we choose wrong, He gives us a chance to repent. If we refuse to repent, we perish by our own foolishness.

Whether Suzie accepts God and is saved or rejects Him and goes to hell of her own foolishness and pride is not God's fault. He gave her life, mind, will, and means to make choices and to know right from wrong. If she asks Him to guide her He will. If she ignores Him he will not force her.

In your world, God created man as a cruel joke — He placed him in Paradise, gave him everything, even a woman to keep him company, then tricked them!

Our world is an independent little playground. Some of us end up where God wants us; others don't. It does not diminish God, it does not change what He planned -- which is to have mankind in Paradise. Not necessarily you, or me, but mankind. And our free will does not change the fact that He shall have mankind in paradise, with or without you or me.

His plan is already accomplished. Your decisions do not change a thing as far as God is concerned; your foolishness only affects your life and your destination. Those who end up in paradise will be with Him because they chose God, just as those who are not will be in hell because they chose to not follow God.

Now, someone here will come up with +Paul and say "but God chose +Paul and interfered in His life." Yes He did. And +Paul was not the only one. He did that so others could know Him through Paul. Not everyone has that ability. God does things that will help us come to Him, but He will not force or coerce. Forced love is no love.

In your world, God created man as a cruel joke — He placed him in Paradise, gave him everything, even a woman to keep him company, then tricked them!

Our world is an independent little playground. Some of us end up where God wants us; others don't. It does not diminish God, it does not change what He planned -- which is to have mankind in Paradise. Not necessarily you, or me, but mankind. And our free will does not change the fact that He shall have mankind in paradise, with or without you or me.

Good summary of our respective anthropologies. Underlying it is the whole Protestant system of salvation (by imputation) rather than a theosis or divinization. I think God's design of sharing Himself with us is much more in line with God Himself - Love, rather than "sneaking" into heaven all dirty with a clean coat on...It is the re-introduction of fate. So many Christians escaped that concept during the time of the Roman Empire, only to find themselves subject to it again today.

Regards

Isn't it a tad bit odd to be formulating complete doctrines and policies for the Church on disputed text?

Well, isn't it a bit odd for someone to believe in a book whose authorship is not absolutely known for sure? The authorship of some of the books in the New Testament is not certain to this date. That's just the way it is. And yet we believe in every word in that book! Then if we believe in every word, why not formulate doctrines based on it?

Obviously, the Church looked at the content of those books and, while it could not establish the authorship with absolute certainty, it established that what the books were saying was in harmony with a known author's previous books and teaching of the Church from the beginning. Thus, the books are inspired and they speak the truth.

Why do we believe them? Because they say they are true?

"This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true" [John 21:24]

How do we know that was John who wrote that? How do we know that what the author wrote is really true as he claims? It's called faith. There is no hard and unshakable evidence that it is. We choose to believe it based on what we know through faith.

What is faith, Helrey D? "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." [Heb 11:1]

The evidence of things not seen. Some evidence! Try that in court. We believe because faith gives us hope of ever-lasting life (cf Titus 1:2). Take that factor out of the equation and see how many will believe. We believe because we choose to believe, because we hope to get something out of it. And that is no true faith, I say. Unless we believe for the glory of God and for nothing that concernes us, (if we really believe we are worthless), then it is not for the glory of God.

If we believe the Bible speaks he truth, than we can formulate doctrines based on what's in it. Individual authroship is not important. (After all wh are the authors of the Old Testament? What proof do we have of their authenticity?). It's all based on blind faith.

It is the re-introduction of fate. So many Christians escaped that concept during the time of the Roman Empire, only to find themselves subject to it again today

Very well put, Jo

I don't think I can add anything to what Jo Kus and Kosta posted in response. The entire Holy Tradition is infallible. The written Bible is a subset of it. As a part of the Tradition it is inerrant, and, as a small example of our beleif in its inerrancy, others and I took great pains even on this thread to illuminate the scripture to you. If the scripture is torn out of he Holy Tradition as a whole, it has lead great many to error, most notably for us, Luther.

I didn't think you thought that God stays out of our lives

God does not impose. He only offers.

God created Adam and Eve fully knowing they would become corrupt and die

God created Adam and Eve with the full knowledge of what effects their free choice will have, not what choices they must make.

The resulting sin and death were simply the effects of ancestral parents' free choice which included not only their decision to disobey God, but also do refuse to repent.

see posts 1-2100+ for a description of how Protestants view salvation and sanctification

I am familiar with the Protestant view(s) to a reasonable extent. I realize that in theory the Holy Ghost can sanctify one in his lifetime in the strict fashion of the Protestant timeline, -- declarative faith first, a downpouring of sanctifying grace later, good works undertaken joyfully by a believing heart. My comment was, and is, that Protestantism tends to deny that the walk of faith requires two legs: faith and works of love. I surely have met many righteous Protestants. I also know some Protestants driven to despair by recurrences of sin flying in the face of their supposed status of being saved by faith, the faith they know in their hearts to be genuine. I know others who develop insensitivity to sin, -- sin boldly, -- and fall off ont he other side, presuming their salvation. None of that is healthy.

Nor is it scriptural. Having spoken of salvation by faith in Galatians, St. Paul moves on to exhort his audience to works of charity. Elsewhere he urges to "work out one's salvation with fear and trembling". He explains that devotion to Christ is best experienced through celibacy. Christ spent most of his ministry on earth teaching about good works; He promises to judge us by them, -- not by faith. When the apostles asked Christ to increase their faith He responded with a parable of Unprofitable Servant, a clear exhortation to uncessant work.

I am pinging Kolokotronis who, I know, has questions of his own regarding this once-saved-always-saved theology.