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

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

[Kolokotronis]

FK, you have made a fascinating post. I think I now see where part of the problem is and its in how you use the word "salvation". As I understand your use of the term, salvation is the result of "regeneration" by the Holy Spirit and good works (I'll leave aside discernment for a moment) are the fruit of "salvation"? Right?

I have been looking at your word "salvation" as the equivalent of our word "theosis". I think I can say with some confidence that when a Roman Catholic uses the word salvation he means theosis but it is evident that you are using it in a different way. I also notice that you use the words "process of sanctification" seemingly as an equivalent with "salvation". For Orthodox Christians and for Roman Catholics, there is a distinction between salvation or theosis and the "process of santification" or the "process of theosis". That process is always as a result, both initially and ultimately, of grace or the uncreated energies of God by the Holy Spirit. +Symeon the New Theologian a man who some say attained theosis in this life, puts it this way:

"Can a man take fire into his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?' (Prov. 6:27) says the wise Solomon. And I say: can he, who has in his heart the Divine fire of the Holy Spirit burning naked, not be set on fire, not shine and glitter and not take on the radiance of the Deity in the degree of his purification and penetration by fire? For penetration by fire follows upon purification of the heart, and again purification of the heart follows upon penetration by fire, that is, inasmuch as the heart is purified, so it receives Divine grace, and again inasmuch as it receives grace, so it is purified. When this is completed (that is, purification of heart and acquisition of grace have attained their fullness and perfection), through grace a man becomes wholly a god."

What he is describing here until the final sentence is the gradual process of theosis. The final sentence describes complete theosis, which the Roman Catholics call 'salvation". Theosis or salvation for us is the "end product" and is not descriptive of the process.

+Thalassios taught the same thing in a different manner; note the final sentence:

"...when the intellect has been perfected, it unites wholly with God and is illumined by divine light, and the most hidden mysteries are revealed to it. Then it truly learns where wisdom and power lie... While it is still fighting against the passions it cannot as yet enjoy these things... But once the battle is over and it is found worthy of spiritual gifts, then it becomes wholly luminous, powerfully energized by grace and rooted in the contemplation of spiritual realities. A person in whom this happens is not attached to the things of this world but has passed from death to life."

Works, as the fruit of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and also as a preparation of the "self" for more "fire" of the Holy Spirit, play a vital roll in the this process of theosis. As +Gregory Palamas wrote, note again the final sentence:

"After our forefather's transgression in paradise through the tree, we suffered the death of our soul - which is the separation of the soul from God - prior to our bodily death; yet although we cast away our divine likeness, we did not lose our divine image. Thus when the soul renounces its attachment to inferior things and cleaves through love to God and submits itself to Him through acts and modes of virtue, it is illuminated and made beautiful by God and is raised to a higher level, obeying His counsels and exhortations; and by these means it regains the truly eternal life. Through this life it makes the body conjoined to it immortal, so that in due time the body attains the promised resurrection and participates in eternal glory."

Thus for the theology of The Church, what you call "salvation" we call a process, salvation or theosis being what these Fathers are speaking of in the final sentences of the above snips. Now as for falling away during the process, well the Fathers are unanimous in their conviction that indeed that can happen. The process of theosis, theosis itself and the possibility of failure during the process as The Church believes is graphically demonstrated by the icon of the Ladder of Divine Ascent; I don't think I've posted it on this thread:

We start at the bottom of the Ladder and climb upward to union with Christ which is theosis. Along the way we are tempted by demons and encouraged by angels. Some make it, others fall off the Ladder into the Pit (notice that the one headlong into Hell and the third and fourth up the Ladder falling off are hierarchs, very Eastern! :))

Your quotes have not been interpreted by the Fathers or The Church as meaning we cannot fail of our goal of theosis. The first two texts refer, so The Fathers say, to our sealing with Holy Chrism at Chrismation. Indeed, in the Orthodox sacrament, the priest says, as he annoits the Christian, "The servant of God N is sealed in the name of The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit...." The next verse, from John, is interpreted to mean that while no one can "snatch" us from the hand of God, we can "fall" out of it. As +John Chrysostomos writes in Homily VI on Phillipians:

"As long as we are in the hand of God, “no one is able to pluck us out” (John x. 28.), for that hand is strong; but when we fall away from that hand and that help, then are we lost, then are we exposed, ready to be snatched away, as a “bowing wall, and a tottering fence” (Ps. lxii. 3.); when the wall is weak, it will be easy for all to surmount."

The final quote from Romans is repeated time and again by the Fathers for two purposes. One is to demonstrate how God's love falls on all, the good and the evil equally:

"Love never hates anyone, never reproves anyone, never condemns anyone, never grieves anyone, never abhors anyone, neither faithful nor infidel nor stranger nor sinner nor fornicator, nor anyone impure, but instead it is precisely sinners, and weak and negligent souls that it loves more, and feels pain for them and grieves and laments, and it feels sympathy for the wicked and sinners, more than for the good, imitating Christ Who called sinners, and ate and drank with them. For this reason, showing what real love is, He taught saying, 'Become good and merciful like your Father in Heaven,' and as He rains on bad and good and makes the sun to rise on just and unjust alike, so also is the one who has real love, and has compassion, and prays for all." Abba Ammonas (one of the Desert Fathers)

The second reason is to demonstrate that we all have equal access to God's grace, as +Peter the Damascene writes:

""We all receive God's blessings equally. But some of us, receiving God's fire, that is, His word, become soft like beeswax, while the others like clay become hard as stone. And if we do not want Him, He does not force any of us, but like the sun He sends His rays and illuminates the whole world, and he who wants to see Him, sees Him, whereas the one who does not want to see Him, is not forced by Him. And no one is responsible for this privation of light except the one who does not want to have it. God created the sun and the eye. Man is free to receive the sun's light or not. The same is true here. God sends the light of knowledge like rays to all, but He also gave us faith like an eye. The one who wants to receive knowledge through faith, keeps it by his works, and so God gives him more willingness, knowledge, and power"

So, it seems you are using "salvation" in a different way than we do. Tell me, what do you believe happens after the death of the body? BTW, sorry for being so long winded.

[HarleyD]

"...apparent rejection by Protestantism of the first 1500 years of Christian theology on salvation in favor of a once saved always saved mindset. Where does this come from?"

First let me state that our Catholic or Orthodox friends would like us to believe the Protestantism just POPPED into existence 1500 years after they've been humming along. This is far from true. The Reformed belief is the true belief of the western early church. The Orthodox church built their theology around John Cassian, a student of Pelagius, both of whom were condemned by the western church as heretics. Many of us Reformers would argue that we are the remnant of the true western church. The Roman Catholics started heading east around 600AD and finally made the transition with Trent.

That being said, when the Arminians broke away from the Calvinists they created the Remonstrant laying out their 5-Points. One of these points was the belief that a person could so fall away from grace that they would no longer be saved (btw-You'll find the 5-points of the Remonstrant to be very close to Roman Catholic theology.) The Synod of Dort countered the Remonstrant with the TULIP which stated while it IS possible for people to fall away, it will never happen simply because we are sustained by God's grace through our Lord Jesus who watches over His flock.

My understanding on this whole OSAS mess is that over time there were some Arminians didn't like the idea of losing one salvation. It smack of works. However they couldn't overtly go back to the Calvinists and say, "Well, looky here. I guess you fellers were right about the PotS all along." Instead they invented OSAS which is a bastardized version of the two views. Please see: A review article on R. T. Kendall’s Once Saved, Always Saved This view allow men to continue to be saved while at the same time retaining their free will. If there is one thing Arminians don't want to give up it's their free will.

To be frank while I believed in OSAS for 30 years I never understood the scriptures behind it and certain I did not understand how one could fall away and still be a Christian. It made no sense and when I would ask questions I simply get the standard, "Let's move on..." kind of comment. Of course if you go with the Catholic/Orthodox/some Protestant view of man losing his salvation, IMHO, you are into works. PotS is the only system that seems consistent with God's grace and salvation while placing the right emphasis on works. Plus it has scripture the Arminians can't explain.

Joh 10:11-18 "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."

[Kolokotronis]

"The Orthodox church built their theology around John Cassian, a student of Pelagius...."

Harley, that's just plain silly. +John Cassian's thought was thoroughly patristic and bible based. In any event, many of the greatest theologians of The Church, like +Athanasius the Great, +John Chrysostomos, +Basil the Great, +Gregory the Theologian, etc. etc. all were born before +John Cassian and certainly were of far greater impact on the theology of The Church than he was. Your statement is just Calvinist apologetics and fantasy.

As for your theory that John 10:11-18 supports Calvinism and somehow condemns works, that's just a Calvinist innovation. Read +John Chrysostomos' Homily LX on the Gospel of +John. Foreknowledge, Harley, doesn't equal predestination and the passage you use as a proof text hasnothing to do with works, though as you well know, the role of works in the process of theosis is well established by both scripture and the Fathers. BTW, The Fathers deal with that one too!

By the way, am I wrong in assuming that in Calvinist theology there is either no such thing as the Final Judgment, a separating of the goats from the sheep, or there is one but merely for show or to give God a chance to wreak a little "vengence"?

[annalex]

I find little to disagree in your beautiful post. The Catholics believe that hope is an important theological virtue. Both despair and presumption are then theological vices. I do not see how one vice is better than the other. But beyond that, I think we agree on the relative role of faith and work in salvation, even when we use different terminology.

[annalex]

Your response fails your own test! :)

I lost you here. Why? I also don't see every Protestant deciding an individual moral code.

Of course not. But in principle, they could open the Bible and do just that, because that is Protestantism is all about: find out what you think the Bible said and find a church that fits you. If you can't, start your own.

[annalex]

How do you explain Romans 3:23 - "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"?

If you read Chapter 3 from the beginning, it speaks about the Jews and the fact that they received the Law (v. 2). It then asks, is it something for which the Jews should be excelled (v. 9), and answers, -No. The Jewish law does not redeem. Previously, in Chapter 1, the pagan Greeks got their treatment and were found even worse. Both Jews and Greeks have "no fear of God before their eyes" (vv 11-18). St. Paul concludes that "by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified" (v 20).

It is in this context that he declared that "all have sinned and need the glory of God". It is clear now, is it not, that "all" refers to the Jews who rely on the law of Moses and the pagan Greeks who only have natural law. It does not refer to the Christians at all, -- it describes the state of mankind before the sanctifying grace of Christ.

Because of other scripture we know that man has an inclination to sin even after he received the Gospel of Christ. But this particular scripture, culminating in verse 23, does not speak to their condition.

We agree, of course, that sinlessness is exceptional, and sin is normal. Nevertheless, most would agree that children before the age of reason did not sin. Thus, even outside of the exceptional position of Mary and St. John the Baptist not literally "all" have sinned.

[annalex]

it seems you are using "salvation" in a different way than we do

Something always to be borne in mind. A lot of arguing could be avoided if terminology were explained in the beginning.

[Kolokotronis]

I think you are misreading Tertullian. His point is that although God foresaw that Adam would sin, he did nothing to stop him, or the serpent, because having given him Free Will, he wouldn't take it back. Man was created in the image and likeness of God. The image of God contains Free Will. Its part of our being. It has nothing to do with being a parent who wants to be a friend so lets the kids run wild. :)

Marcion, by the way, was a major league heretic. A very nasty, very dangerous fellow.

"For, since He had once for all allowed (and, as we have shown, worthily allowed) to man freedom of will and mastery of himself,...

God allows man mastery of himself??? Yikes! Why doesn't this idea scare you to death? :)"

Sort of, but what it means is that God is neither the author of nor responsible for Evil; we are. Theosis and the grace necessary to attain it are free for the taking, but many don't pick up on that. Its sort of like something a wise priest once said to me. If it were announced that he was handing out $1000.00 bills at the liturgy on Sunday, the crowds would fill the church and the streets outside. Instead he offers LIFE through Christ...the church may often be full, but the streets outside aren't.

"Finally, and in an overall sense, while I would agree that man has the freedom to choose evil, I would say it doesn't start until salvation. Before that, we are dead in sin, and have no choice."

Until we receive the grace of baptism, we are indeed dead spiritually and are quite incapable of becoming like Christ, though there are those Orthodox theologians who believe otherwise. Even after we start on the process of theosis, as I said in an earlier post, we can "miss the mark", sin. Once we attain theosis, if we attain theosis, then we have no ability to sin because we wouldn't sin, our entire essence being focused on God rather than the self. But FK, that seldom, very seldom, happens in this life.

[kosta50]

Tell me, what do you believe happens after the death of the body?

"The soul without the body can do nothing, whether good or evil. The vision which some see concerning those things that are yonder are shown to them by God as a dispensation for their profit. Just as the lyre remains useless and silent if there is no one to play, so the soul and body, when they are separated, can do nothing." +Athanasius the Great

In other words, we are dead! The soul is the anima, the "quickener", of the body, that gives it life; it takes both to make a human being. When they separate the being dies. It is an unnatural state. We become disfunctional, like a hammer without a handle.

[Kolokotronis]

Kosta, I know what we believe. I wondered what FK believes! :)

[kosta50]

His point is that although God foresaw that Adam would sin, he did nothing to stop him, or the serpent, because having given him Free Will, he wouldn't take it back

I think the point the Protestants are making is that He foreknew what would happen before He even created man and gave him free will -- and He proceeded to make man anyway, knowing that he shall fail.

But, that is assuming way too much about God. Let's just say that He foreknew the effects of their decisions: If they sin, they fall; if they don't sin they stay.

[kosta50]

I meant to include FK too on that. Sorry.

[HarleyD]

There's nothing silly about my remark, "The Orthodox church built their theology around John Cassian, a student of Pelagius...." You state that the remark is "silly" and then turn right around and say that John Cassian was "bible based". Well, if he was bible based didn't the Orthodox build their theology around him? One would hope so.

As for your theory that John 10:11-18 supports Calvinism and somehow condemns works

My verses were not meant to condemn works. It was meant as an example of perseverance of the saints. Our Lord Jesus is our good Shepherd who watches over us (including ourselves). It is he who keeps us by His grace and no one will snatch us out of His hand.

[Forest Keeper]

I have read some of his work, but I was actually quoting C.S. Lewis and "Mere Christianity".

As a very quick sidebar, I have heard different things, was C.S. Lewis an Anglican?

Me: "I would only disagree that the Church was "guided". I would say that it was "directed".

What is the distinction? In either case, God is the power behind it. Catholics don't make the claim that our leaders are infallible based on their own ability!

I have learned from you all and do understand that Catholics do not claim infallibility on their own merit. My distinction was based on the concept of cooperation, I think of a guide as being less authoritative than a director. (If I'm wrong about this I do want to know.) I think of cooperation as that between two separate and distinct entities. Yes, you have God's help, but in order to cooperate you must add something from your own self which is not of God. Isn't this free will? My understanding of what you all are saying is that God "partners" with you to accomplish His will. Yes, you might say God is the major partner, but your "self" is still necessary. Is this fair?

Whether it is on the contents of Scripture OR making a decision on a belief ("is Jesus the same essence as God the Father?"), do you not agree that God would protect His Church, the Faithful, from error?

You would say that my church is not part of the Church, but that I as an individual might be a part of it or of the Faithful. Clearly, at least one of us is in error on a number of issues. Which of us is God not protecting? :) Or, if I disagree with your leaders, am I not one of the faithful?

If you think that the Scriptures are infallible, I do not understand why you refuse to accept God working through these same men to make decisions on the Faith.

That's because I don't believe the scriptures ultimately came from these men. I have no problem with the idea of God giving special wisdom to certain people, like Solomon, but I'm not sure that these special abilities are necessarily transferable from man to man, at least not on the grand scale that you require. Too many have been proven unworthy throughout the ages. I know that you will say that "THE CHURCH" is still infallible despite some bad apples, but I have never heard an explanation of how an infallible Church allows bad apples.

Thus, it is illogical to believe that Paul should have discussed things that didn't come up - either because they were commonly held (Eucharist is Christ's Body) or were not theologically discussed yet (Mary was Assumed into heaven).

I certainly wouldn't presume to tell Paul what he should or should not have written. :) My point was that God did know the future and He could have so easily avoided the whole Reformation by inspiring a few more lines. But, according to my own theology, if the vast majority of the 775 million of us are lost because we aren't Catholic Christians, then I suppose those are God's ways. (I know you never said you thought the vast majority of us are lost, but if you have a guess, I would love to hear it. :)

In matters of faith and morals, we need a Body that protects what was handed down - the Deposit of Faith. This is serious business, because we believe that Deposit CAME FROM GOD. It is not subject to our spin or change with the culture. Nothing is added to it ... (emphasis added)

What about saying mass only in Latin? What about eating meat on Fridays? What about encouraging Catholics to actually read the Bible?

What would BE the point of Scriptures if there was not something to back it up and say "THIS is what it means"?

Well, none, I suppose. That's what we think the Holy Spirit does. You believe that the Spirit only speaks to a few in your hierarchy, and we believe that the Spirit speaks to all believers. (It's not like it's a long distance call either! :) I agree that the Spirit does not send out mixed messages, which must mean that wherever there is error, it must be on the receiver's end. We are all fallible men, after all.

Can you go through the process of proving that the Bible is God's Word WITHOUT the witness of the Church? The Bible is not self-attesting in its individual books! Explain Philemon or Jude. Why? I have yet to hear an answer on this front.

Yes, I can, but it won't be to your satisfaction. If I were to quote internally, such as from 2 Timothy 3:15-17, you have already been ordered to interpret that away. It would be the same for any other verse. I could go further and point to such things as unity and the prophecies, but you are again waiting for me with dogma to refute it. I could throw in some external arguments as well (historicity, integrity of scribes, indestructibility of the book, etc.), but you are barred from believing them, even if they made perfect sense to you. It's a no win situation because you are not allowed to engage with an open mind. Everything you think and say first has to go through a lens, about which origin we honestly disagree.

[jo kus]

Catholic or Orthodox friends would like us to believe the Protestantism just POPPED into existence 1500 years after they've been humming along. This is far from true

What are the pillars of Protestantism? Faith without works saves; The Bible alone is the rule of faith; man is imputed justification, rather than infused. Man is depraved totally and has no free will. Did I miss any major ones? Oh, and man is saved and cannot fall upon his baptism/sinner's prayer.

I would say that you will have a difficult time finding these innovations in the Fathers of the Church - and you CERTAINLY will not find them all in ANY Father. Thus, Protestantism as we know it did INDEED "pop" into existence during the 1500's. If you can point out ONE Church Father that holds even 3 of the 4 ideas simulataneously, you will have proved your point. It is a shame that you keep spouting off this nonsense about the Fathers. Perhaps you should actually read them. You will be surprised with what you can learn - even if you remain a Baptist/Reformed man. There is a lot of insight from reading their interpretations of Scriptures. Can we point to more holy men then them?

The Orthodox church built their theology around John Cassian, a student of Pelagius, both of whom were condemned by the western church as heretics. Many of us Reformers would argue that we are the remnant of the true western church. The Roman Catholics started heading east around 600AD and finally made the transition with Trent.

Mere assertions without a shred of evidence. This has been disproved here before. Don't you grow tired of this? I have asked you time and time again for such evidence of the changes between Orange 2 and Trent, but I never hear an answer...

The Synod of Dort countered the Remonstrant with the TULIP which stated while it IS possible for people to fall away, it will never happen simply because we are sustained by God's grace

A big leap of self-determination, as we can't know we are of the Elect in the FUTURE. Certainly, the Elect will be saved - but it is presumption to "write yourself" into that book. God might be holding you up as an example of the importance of perseverance to other Christians, only to bring you down later! "Wow, Harley seemed like such a good Christian, but look at him now...I guess I better work out my salvation in fear and trembling..." Who can say what God has planned for you. It is nonsense to presume you are of the elect.

My understanding on this whole OSAS mess is that over time there were some Arminians didn't like the idea of losing one salvation. It smack of works

You don't appear to understand the concept of works in the Bible. Work is not an action, but something we do for pay. Isn't it obvious I can do an action, but out of love and not for pay? Doesn't Christ leave us with ONE Commandment that sums up the Law?

I did not understand how one could fall away and still be a Christian.

Because we aren't Christian in name only. By severing YOURSELF from the Family of God, you are "Christian" by virtue of your Baptism, but this has little meaning if we later reject Christ. Re-read Matthew 7:21 again. The emphasis is on doing the Will of the Father, not on making verbal declarations at an altar call.

Regards

[jo kus]

was C.S. Lewis an Anglican?

As far as I know, he was. I hear that Tolkein could never bring him the rest of the way!

My distinction was based on the concept of cooperation, I think of a guide as being less authoritative than a director.

We believe that God allows us to use our intelligence and powers of the mind to make decisions, guided by the will that is led by the Spirit. God provided the visible evidence that led to only one conclusion on each epistle. Thus, there is a cooperation, man does use his knowledge, and God ensures that we make the correct decisions, but not by overpowering us. We believe that God is more behind the scenes, so to speak, then a glorified vision that gave the Bible's table of contents. God COULD do it that way, but no one reported that this is how it happened.

I think of cooperation as that between two separate and distinct entities. Yes, you have God's help, but in order to cooperate you must add something from your own self which is not of God

I disagree with that definition of cooperation. That is a human definition, and would apply between two humans. But with God, we cannot "add" anything, strictly speaking. God has given us EVERYTHING. Both in nature and in grace. However, God has given us the ability to be secondary causes. This is a concept that many Protestants are not aware of or don't understand. An obvious example is child birth. Men and women are secondary causes of that baby forming. Biologically speaking, a baby will not form without the two coming together (ordinarily. Let's leave out the artificial stuff for now). Thus, we are secondary causes - although God makes it possible by creating us with our respective parts.

God gives us free will in the sense that WE are secondary causes of our actions. We are not puppets. But free will does NOT ignore that God is the primary cause of all. As St. Augustine said, "God merely crowns the gifts that He has given man". God rewards His own gifts and their utilization by us as secondary causes.

By realizing that men are secondary causes, that we are operative and have free will to choose - but keeping in mind that God is the primary cause and will "provide" for certain events, it is clear that we can attribute the Bible's compilation to both man and God. Man used his own abilities to judge what belonged and what didn't, while God provided man the "evidence" to be able to make the judgment - the Spirit was certainly among these men, but not to overpower them.

Clearly, at least one of us is in error on a number of issues. Which of us is God not protecting? :) Or, if I disagree with your leaders, am I not one of the faithful?

That is true. And you does not protect each individual's set of beliefs. You have admitted as such very recently regarding OSAS. Who's to say you are incorrect on the Eucharist, if you base you beliefs on your OWN understanding (alone) of Scripture? As to your disagreement, [still trying to "catch" me :)], again, I will say I cannot make that judgment because I don't know you "knowledge" of the Catholic faith and your understanding. Are you REALLY rejecting the Church, knowing that it is the continuation of the Church established by Christ? I would doubt that now. Perhaps we can say you are still "invincibly ignorant". You have been raised in a particular background, taught particular things. It takes time to overcome such biases and ideas. So I can't say the reasons for your rejection of the faith. I would speculate that you still have not received the evidence to overcome the hurdles placed before you.

I'm not sure that these special abilities are necessarily transferable from man to man, at least not on the grand scale that you require.

God did it throughout the OT and NT. But now He no longer does that, relying on individual men to figure it out for themselves?? I thought the New Covenant was supposed to be better, not being one where we CAN'T know the truth about God. Men disagree. Without an authority, we can KNOW little about God. Christ came to give us knowledge of the truth, not to confuse us with the opinions of men. Christ said He would be with His Church for all time. What does this mean to you? If the Spirit of Truth is with His Church (but not individually - as evidence clearly shows), then what IS Jesus talking about? How will the Gates of Hell not prevail against the Church?

Too many have been proven unworthy throughout the ages. I know that you will say that "THE CHURCH" is still infallible despite some bad apples, but I have never heard an explanation of how an infallible Church allows bad apples

As I explained, God GUARDS His DEPOSIT, the teaching of the Church, not the individual's life regarding sin. No one is impeccable (sinless). At what point would you say "OK, that Pope is 'acceptable'? Even one sin, you could then argue, would be enough to bring down the whole idea of the Church's infalliblity? If infallibility was tied to sin, then ANY sin would disprove it. But God Himself prevents even a poor Pope from disrupting the Deposit. Christ came to give US His teachings. He isn't about to let a human screw that up. Thus, we can be SURE that God's teachings, AS GIVEN, continue to come to us. God guides the Church from teaching falsehoods. The Apostles believed this in their writings. Is this based on the Apostles' superior ability or on God? Why does God stop protecting His Church from error???

My point was that God did know the future and He could have so easily avoided the whole Reformation by inspiring a few more lines.

And so why did God allow Adolf Hitler to be born? I am not comparing the Reformation to Hitler, but you will get the point. Our ways are not God's ways...

But, according to my own theology, if the vast majority of the 775 million of us are lost because we aren't Catholic Christians

Oh, brother, well, your theology is incorrect. I never once said a person had to be Roman Catholic to be saved. I have made great effort to NOT say that. Only when we understand that the Church of Christ subsists within the Roman Catholic Church are we REQUIRED to join it. Beyond that, I can't answer for individuals. We believe that God saves ALL, Muslims, people in the Amazons, and even Protestants THROUGH the Body of Christ, the Church, which subsists in the Roman Catholic Church. God, in His infinite mercy, does not ABSOLUTELY require that a person enter the visible Church - to even be baptised. God is not bound by the Sacraments and can save whom He will. I would say that God placed me in the Catholic Church because I need all the help I can get!

What about saying mass only in Latin? What about eating meat on Fridays? What about encouraging Catholics to actually read the Bible?

None of those are dogma of the faith, the Deposit of the Faith given by the Apostles. The are called disciplines, which are given by the Church of a particular time. The Mass was first said in Aramaic or Greek, not Latin. The idea of fasting is from the OT, although I don't know when Friday became operative. Reading the Bible has always been encouraged, although during the polemics during the Reformation, some in the Church were afraid that people would come up with their own ideas and leave the Church. We read the Scriptures WITH the Church.

I agree that the Spirit does not send out mixed messages, which must mean that wherever there is error, it must be on the receiver's end. We are all fallible men, after all.

Exactly. Which is why we don't rely on ourselves on the Deposit of Faith. It was given by God, and cannot be changed by our own ideas - Christianity is a revealed religion. Knowing that men make mistakes, WE don't make dogmatic declarations. How can we alone do that? And why should another person believe us if the "Spirit" speaks to them differently? I believe the Spirit speaks to us, but not in that way. There are too many people who make the claim and are wrong. Christ said that a Kingdom divided among itself must fall. Does the Spirit go against Christ's teachings and meaning of those teachings. Eucharist...

If I were to quote internally, such as from 2 Timothy 3:15-17, you have already been ordered to interpret that away

LOL!!!! I've been ordered? Achtung! Common sense should dictate that 2 Timothy is not referring to the NT writings. Pal clearly tells Timothy about the Scripture he read during his YOUTH! The NT was not written yet! At best, Paul is referring to the OT as Scriptures. But even here, you go too far in saying that these verses teach Bible alone. Look at Eph 4:11-13. They tell us of another way of reaching Christian perfection that has nothing to do with the Bible. This verse refutes Bible alone, within the Bible itself!

My qustion regarding Philemon is "what INTERNAL evidence do you have that this letter is God-breathed." This is what I mean that the Scripute is not self-attesting. We rely on OTHER PEOPLE to tell us that Philemon is Scripture.

Brother in Christ

[Forest Keeper]

An interesting note is the definition of "catholic". It means more than "universal". It means "the totality" or "the whole of the parts". Thus, it can be said that there is no such thing as a cafeteria Catholic. By picking and choosing, you de facto say you are not "Catholic". Thus, we follow everything that is legitimately taught to us. You would, too, if you accepted the Church's establishment is based on the Foundation, Jesus Christ.

That's interesting. Then what would you call what I would call a "cafeteria Catholic"? (We have the same of course.) Are people like Kerry and Kennedy "not Catholics"? As an outsider, I would say 'YES' to this, but my opinion doesn't count :) What do you say about clergy continuing to administer sacraments to such people?

I am sure that both of us are aware of people who have fallen away from Christianity, in some cases, many years after following Christ. The problem is often skepticism creeps in. Or a strong presence of evil appears. But knowledge is not enough to hold us to God. It requires an ongoing relationship with Christ.

Yes, an ongoing relationship is critical. I sure am aware of people who have fallen away after professing a faith. My own mother was like this, until she died two years ago. When I adopted "perseverance of the saints" it was a particularly bitter pill to swallow because of what I had to then admit. For her, I had clinged to "once saved always saved". But, I did feel led, so I have to just deal with it. I can't know with absolute certainty until I'm there, so I'll just have to wait.

[jo kus]

Are people like Kerry and Kennedy "not Catholics"?

As you know, we cannot judge another person - but if they are obstinate in heretical beliefs, they are separating themselves from the Body, even if the Bishop doesn't do it officially. God doesn't need the Bishop to make such an official determination to call someone a heretic. Officially, they remain Catholics, but to God, they are de facto turning away from the faith.

What do you say about clergy continuing to administer sacraments to such people?

I would quote Gal 1:10 to them... By refusing to discipline someone, we are trying to please other men, rather than please God. Love is not "getting along" with other people, it is leading people to the truth. I would ask "why do you think Paul excommunicated the man of 1 Cor 6"? The answer is clearly "so that the man would return to God". This priest will have a lot of explaining to do for allowing such men to remain in heresy, scandalizing the public and keeping heretics from returning to God (such a heretic will not change unless truly challenged). They are not very good shepherds of the flock.

Yes, an ongoing relationship is critical. I sure am aware of people who have fallen away after professing a faith. My own mother was like this, until she died two years ago

Yes, when it is something close and personal, it can be difficult to continue to follow seemingly restrictive teachings. We trust in the Mercy of the Almighty Father, who is not bound by anything here on earth. We do not know where you mother stood regarding her relationship. Perhaps it might not have been as good as you would have liked. Fortunately, we don't make the decisions. The Catholic Church doesn't condemn specific people to the confines of Hell, because NO ONE can know that relationship between God and the person - and I would say that even WE don't know the full extent of our relationship with Him. Thus, we trust in the mercy of God and hope and pray that the person has chosen a life with God, even if they didn't show it during their lives very well. As you said, we can't know until we ourselves move to the other side.

Regards

[HarleyD]

What are the pillars of Protestantism?

A person is saved by God's grace-period!!! Anything else (cooperation or man's faith) is the same Pelagius/Semi-Pelagius/Arminian argument simply expressed in different ways. On one side there is Calvinism; on the other side there is everything else. There is no middle ground.

I would say that you will have a difficult time finding these innovations in the Fathers of the Church - and you CERTAINLY will not find them all in ANY Father.

There is not ONE thing that you have that hasn't been given you by God including your faith. – Augustine (paraphrased)

There is a lot of insight from reading their interpretations of Scriptures.

Why should I read THEIR interpretation of scriptures when I can read the scriptures? While some of them had great insight others did not. Even Augustine, arguably the best theologian of the day, honorably retracted some of his works because they were in error. How many people didn’t do that? The Church simply picks and chooses what it likes. They throw out the rest. Protestants are no different except that our benchmark is the Bible. I can glean just as much “insight” from the scriptures as anyone else can if God so wills to whom we are to pray for wisdom and understanding.

I suppose you feel like Ignatius, “If I see white and the Church says it’s black, then it is black.” Augustine stated, “I reasoned…”. There is great insight into those two views.

Mere assertions without a shred of evidence. This has been disproved here before. Don't you grow tired of this?

This is one of the most bizarre statements I have come across. A simple Google search will show anyone that John Cassian is a highly regarded saint of the Orthodox belief. To save time for some please review The Semi-Pelagian Theology of John Cassian; Do Arminian Theology, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy Have Similar Roots? by another church father.

I find it odd that you find that you must deny this very fact. I would think you would proudly tout it.

A big leap of self-determination, as we can't know we are of the Elect in the FUTURE. Certainly, the Elect will be saved - but it is presumption to "write yourself" into that book.

Funny I thought the Catholic Church writes a bunch of people into the book including Mary, ST John Cassian, the humanist Sir Thomas More, and even soon to be Pope John Paul. Isn't the Church being presumptuous? How do they know who made it and who are of the elect? Someone says a prayer to a dead guy and is cured of cancer and it’s off to the official sainthood for that person so that people can start praying for their problem? If you pray to St Joseph and bury a statue by the real estate sign, he’ll help you sell your home? How positively medieval.

The fact is the ONLY one you can know about is yourself. Paul states to examine yourself to see if you are in the faith (2 Cor 13:5) and he knew he had run the “good race”. Our Lord Jesus says, “My sheep hear my voice and I know them…”. He gave us His Spirit in our hearts as a pledge (2 Cor 1:22).

And how do I know that I’m part of the elect? Feelings? Intuition? Cures from cancer or lighting candles? Not hardly. I base my salvation upon God’s word and His divine promises. Abraham BELIEVED God and it WAS (past tense) accounted as righteousness. God said it and I have faith (imputed to me by God's mercies) that God will bring it to pass.

"God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken , and will He not make it good? Num 23:19

Of course, if you doubt whether God's word is accurately put together then that does become a problem. I don't have that problem.

You don't appear to understand the concept of works in the Bible. Work is not an action, but something we do for pay. Isn't it obvious I can do an action, but out of love and not for pay?

Sure, you can do an action. So what? Lots of bad people throughout history did some good things-even some of the bad kings in the Bible. But any work that comes from us must initially come from God. Our Lord Jesus said, “I am the vine you’re the branches. Without me you can do nothing.”

There is not one thing that we haven’t been given-including our works.

By severing YOURSELF from the Family of God, you are "Christian" by virtue of your Baptism, but this has little meaning if we later reject Christ. Re-read Matthew 7:21 again.

Wrong. You are a Christian because God choose you and gave you the faith to believe in Him. You will never reject Him simply because of His grace. It is arrogance to think that you can “maintain” your salvation when we are solely dependent on God’s grace and mercy.

As for Matthew 7 (and 25), those who cry out “Lord, Lord did we not do [fill in the blank]” are the ones who are rejected from heaven because they thought they could get into heaven by doing all sorts of “nice” things. Those who were welcomed in heaven were those who stated, “Lord, WHEN did we do these things?” They didn’t even realize they had done anything. Their works was a natural output of their faith.

[annalex]

I can read the scriptures

Convince me.