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

So God only protected the first generation from error?

In a word, YES. :)

Where exactly does the Scripture even IMPLY that? This sounds like another man-made tradition that keeps men away from God...

You have told me many times that any individual Father or other member of the hierarchy is capable of error on his own, but that the pack is always right. This is what I struggle with in accepting. That, and scriptural interpretation. :)

In the end, it comes down to authority, I suppose. Who do we believe has given us "God's Word"? We know that the Scripture itself is not self-attesting, so we rely on other people to have witnessed something quite spectacular and have handed that down. It is a matter of "do we believe" or not.

When Christ gave the Apostles the power to bind and loosen, he also gave it to Peter individually (Mt 18, Mt 16). We believe that DESPITE humans being fallible and wounded recepticles, they ARE God's choices, the clay pots that God has chosen to pass His Word to us. Do you agree that God could have chosen "perfect" men, men of supreme skill and ability, sinless in every way, to be His corridor of passing His Word to others? What does Paul say about weakness being the obvious means of God's Power? Through those individually fallible men, God has promised to guide them to all truth. There is plenty of Scriptural evidence to suggest that "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth". Either we believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding a group of men to interpret God's Word when called upon to do so (during heresy), or we have NO CLUE on what God has taught as His Word. It has thus become entirely corrupted - since there are a number of Christians who disagree on essential issues. Either God's Spirit is One of Truth, or He hasn't protected it very well - and we CANNOT KNOW what the Truth IS!

When if every Christian was Protestant? And when if someone asked "Is baptism necessary for salvation?" THIS IS A CRITICAL QUESTION! Protestantism CANNOT answer this simple question. Really - is the Spirit protecting the Church or not? Your way has Christians at the whim of every "Pastor Bob" that comes along who can whip up the crowd.

Regards

St. John talks about sin that leads to death (we call "mortal") and sin that does not lead to death ("venial").

Thanks for the verse, 1 John 5:16. My Bible footnote says that this is talking about physical death, the difference being that all sin leads to spiritual death, but not necessarily physical death. Doesn't the smallest sin make us unfit for heaven? If not, how does God draw the line? Does God really excuse those who are stained by sin, even if it is small?

One funny thing (albeit completely off topic), is that when I looked this up I stumbled onto the following:

1 John 5:13 : I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life. (emphasis added)

I love verses like this. :)

This [the issue of God "leaving" us for at least a time] is probably an issue of semantics. When we say that God leaves us because of mortal sin, it means we no longer have sanctifying grace.

I hope it's just semantics, but I am unsure. I answered this much more fully on another very recent post, which I'm sure I pinged you to (if it wasn't actually to you :) Please let me know if I am mistaken.

"Talk about throwing red meat to the loyal opposition! :) Indeed, what would have happened if the Jews and Romans had not used their free will to kill Jesus? I don't know, maybe, perhaps, THE ENTIRE DOWNFALL OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH! :) OT prophecy would have been destroyed, and Jesus' own words would have made Him a liar."

This hardly follows. For what you say to be true, God would have to be unable to know what choices individual human beings would make. God is outside time itself, which is itself a created thing. Past, present, and future as we experience them do not apply to God.

Of course God would inspire the Holy Prophets to speak the truth about what would happen. And of course, Christ would speak the truth about what would happen to him. Men do not have to be made into marionettes for prophecies to become true. All that is necessary is for the source of prophecy to know what did, does, and will happen. This argument from prophecy in support of predestinationist theories implies that the only alternative is for God to be inside time, experiencing it in the same as as his creatures do, waiting with bated breath to find out what is going to happen in human history. He is, of course, not.

Calvinistic predestinationist theory is only one way to explain prophecy and its fulfillment. And in my opinion, it is hardly the most convincing explanation.

"My red meat argument would then be that either Jesus was super duper lucky for things to turn out the way they did in order to accomplish what the Father sent Him to do, OR, maybe it's possible that God actually had a hand in arranging that all the necessary things took place. Perhaps God was really in control of the entire situation all along. Does God gamble on His plan, or does He ensure it?"

See above. Why would Jesus be super duper lucky to know what would happen? To say this is to imply that I am saying that Christ was ignorant of the future. Please don't insult non-Calvinists that way.

"From my side, part of the answer would be that Jesus was never subject to growing old and dying of natural causes. He never had a tendency toward death and corruption. His mission and its accomplishment were perfect and complete from the beginning of time."

Did Christ pretend to hunger, pretend to thirst, pretend to suffer pain, pretend to be tired, pretend to sweat?

"From my side, God did not rely on choices by men. Through withholding of protection and the causing of good, God's perfect plan was accomplished then, just as it is accomplished now."

The Calvinist/predestinationist theory does indeed hold together, as do many theoretical constructs, but only if one is willing to believe that God created a humankind full of automatons, rather than creatures who are created in the image of God -- free to choose God or not.

This whole discussion is to merely refute "absolute assurance" of salvation. We cannot know that. But we can have a very good idea that we are of the elect IF we were to die today...presuming we honestly appraise our relationship with God.

There is no way I could possibly top the wonderful article Harley gave us in 2904. When We Belong To Christ. (Thank you so much, Harley) I know it's long, but it is PACKED with scripture. We really believe that God's word is LOADED with good reasons why we CAN be assured and why we SHOULD be assured.

EVERYTHING that we have is from God, whether in the natural world or in the supernatural. Thus, when we make a decision, God is involved in some manner. HE formed the intellect, He formed our will. Yet, God does not overwhelm our nature with His Grace.

Except for the last part, this sounds pretty good. If God does not overwhelm us, then there must some good in us that we are born with that can be used for this cooperation. I think your side says that we are wounded, as opposed to being dead in sin. I believe that scripture alone, especially from Paul, is on our side.

IF a person who has undergone the washing of sins, is justified in God's eyes - can still sin - doesn't this mean that EVEN IN THIS STATE, we are free to sin or not to sin? Certainly, God helps us to avoid sin. But even among the most holy, sin is still a threat.

Speaking for myself, although I think I'm on the reservation on this, I have always said that after salvation we have some free will ability to sin. This must be so because we do sin and God doesn't cause sin.

[On salvation:] God didn't promise to YOU directly! He promised to His elect. I don't find a passage anywhere in the Scriptures that tells me "Joe, when he will be baptized, is of the elect". Certainly, just because we are baptized doesn't mean we are of the elect, either! We have already agreed on that.

Well, I'm forced to agree with you completely, especially since I don't think baptism has anything to do with salvation. :)

The Bible promises the ELECT will be saved. We must be careful in giving ourselves this title based on subjective feelings within us - feelings that change with time.

We don't base our assurance at all on subjective feelings. We base it on God's promises in his word, which are detailed at extreme length in the article that Harley gave us. This is not a one verse proof. This is a major and well developed theme in the Bible. Multiple verses from many different books of the Bible must all be interpreted away in order to NOT have assurance.

I'm probably just thick, but the your position seems to be a tautology: those in Heaven after they die are those who, while alive, were going to Heaven after they die. By this logic, the elect are identifiable only in retrospect.

And your link contains a tremendous misinterpretation of Hebrews 6. Paul writes in Hebrews 6:4-8:

For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt. Ground that has absorbed the rain falling upon it repeatedly and brings forth crops useful to those for whom it is cultivated receives a blessing from God. But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is rejected; it will soon be cursed and finally burned. But we are sure in your regard, beloved, of better things related to salvation, even though we speak in this way. For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name by having served and continuing to serve the holy ones.

The plain meaning of this passage is that those who fall away from Christ are damned, but the recipients of Paul's letter had not fallen away, but done pleasing works and service. It was understood as such in the early Church, and, in fact, an extreme reading of this passage contributed to the Novationist heresy of the 3rd Century and the Donatist heresy of the 4th Century.

But the linked article instead interprets these passages as follows:

After time farmland will reveal whether its crop is good or bad. So it is with people; some really do not believe; their lives produce weeds. Land that produces thorns and thistles will be burned (v.8); it is no good. Those who belong to Christ produce a good crop (v.7). Things that always accompany salvation will appear in a believer’s life (v.9). The specific example given is the love they showed to God by helping His people (v.10).

The bolded sections completely transpose cause and effect. Further, there is nothing in Hebrews 6 that suggests that the fallen-away never believed. The author of the article cites 1 John 2:9 for the proposition that apostates--those who repudiate the Lord--were never saved in the first place, "so they did not lose what they never had." But what does 1 John 2:8-11 really say?

And yet I do write a new commandment to you, which holds true in him and among you, for the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining. Whoever says he is in the light, yet hates his brother, is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother remains in the light, and there is nothing in him to cause a fall. Whoever hates his brother is in darkness; he walks in darkness and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

The "new commandment" is Jesus'--to love your neighbor as yourself. He who does not follow this commandment sins. Nothing in 1 John 2 states that the sinner was never "saved;" indeed, John anticipates that the recipients of his letter have sinned, but exhorts them to take Jesus seriously by living according to his teachings.

With such willfull misreadings, picked at random, I shudder to think what other errors are in this article.

Does any of this make a practical difference in the way that you live your life and the way that I live my life? I suspect not. I'm sure that you try to follow Jesus' teachings, avoid sin, seek God, and live your faith, as do I. But I know that I am a miserable sinner whose only hope for salvation is to have faith in God and do as Jesus said, while you are assured that you are one of the elect.

FK: "... casual conversation about one's family. Jesus certainly could be formal, but He also just as certainly showed a personal side."

Well, maybe He did and maybe He did not. ...

Really? I obviously cannot quote chapter and verse, as is my want :), but my point is that you seem to be denying the friendship between Jesus and His disciples. Jesus spoke so openly to so many strangers during His ministry, and I just find it hard to believe that He would not have shared about Himself with His closest brethren.

You are free to speculate otherwise, but as far as the scripture is concerned there is no contradiction to the traditional view on Mary as ever virgin.

LOL! Well, I suppose there is no contradiction if you simply interpret away anything in scripture that disagrees with your tradition. That's been my problem with tradition all along. It seems that tradition rules first, and then, after that, scripture is systematically reconfigured through interpretation to conform with that tradition. I admit it is very convenient, but as an outsider I can't possibly buy it. :) You have to throw out so much of the actual text.

FK: ... "there's a pretty good reason why Jesus didn't ask James. Perhaps because HE WASN'T THERE."

But neither St. Peter was there, yet Christ charged him with the pastorship of the Church when he appeared following the resurrection. If Jesus preferred James over John, He could have accomplished that one way or another.

You are right in that if Jesus wanted James, then it would have been James. But John is the one whom Jesus loved. And, by God's design, he was the only one there. Also, I don't know the exact year that everyone died, but isn't it generally accepted that John lived the longest, meaning that he was able to provide for Mary until "whatever" happened to her. :) I appreciate what you are saying about Jewish tradition, but, if I am right, do you think this was the first time Jesus broke with that?

But it does not abolish that fact that James was older than Jesus and therefore not suitable for the role.

You're just testing to see if I read every word of your post, right? :) James was the (half) KID brother of Jesus. :) BTW, just out of curiosity, even if James was an older brother, why would that make him unfit for the role?

The Church teaches that the age of reason begins at 7 at the earliest; anything prior to that is not a willful disobedience but mere instinctive behavior which cannot be sinful. It is a case of invincible ignorance ...

Age 7 at the earliest? I sincerely hope you keep this a closely guarded secret in your youth Sunday Schools. :) So, actual sin isn't possible until the age of reason? "Honor thy father and thy mother" means nothing until the age of reason? I have no problem with the idea of them not being held accountable on the same level as us in terms of salvation, but I've never heard of this blank check idea before for children that old. All this prompts me to ask how you define the age of reason?

BTW, I love invincible ignorance! Let's face it, my only shot at heaven is that I am LOADED with it. :)

The bottom line is, FK, that the Logos, Christ, was begotten as part of the Trinity, not merely as a man, the Son of Mary. I am curious as to whether or not your understanding of the Creed is shared as a matter of doctrine by Baptists in general and if so, why, if you know.

As I said to Alex (I think) in another post, I have been using "begotten" in a dictionary sense and it has been on my own. I did try to research what the SBC says about the Creed, but I couldn't find anything. The Creed is available on their website, however, so there must be some level of approval. :)

On a recent post I said that we wouldn't agree with the baptism part of the Creed, but after seeing the SBC version I may have to take that back (I think:) . In this version, as opposed to the random one I found on the internet, the word "Baptism" is capitalized. That tells me that it might refer to a spiritual baptism as opposed to a ceremonial baptism, in which case I think I can agree. "Baptism for the remission of sins" is very tricky for me, because no Baptist can say that Baptism has anything to do with salvation. And, this whole thing could just be a nuance that I have not learned yet. :)

As a general matter, I would say that Baptists are fine with the Creed, regardless of whatever I have said about it. I just can't explain the baptism part yet. :) I would be happy to try to answer your question, but I'm not sure what you think my understanding of the Creed is. I freely admit that there could be some theological meaning of "begotten" that is wholly unfamiliar to me. Therefore, in this position, I can't possibly claim to speak for all Baptists. :)

Finally, if God willed to die for His own reasons on the Cross, whereas He would not normally die, then He willfully ended His own life, and this is something we are taught is a sin.

WHAT!? OK, Forest, deep breaths. :) Do you really think that Jesus was "killed" and did not voluntarily give up His life?

John 10:17-18 : "17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

Do you see what Jesus did as a suicide, or do you see that Jesus was overwhelmed by superior physical forces, taken into custody, wrongly convicted, and executed beyond His ability to stop any of it?

My Bible footnote says that this is talking about physical death, the difference being that all sin leads to spiritual death, but not necessarily physical death. Doesn't the smallest sin make us unfit for heaven? If not, how does God draw the line? Does God really excuse those who are stained by sin, even if it is small?

Say what? Let's look at these verses again...

"If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death." 1 John 5:16-17

Your bible footnotes don't make sense. Which sin leads to physical death? That is contrived. What I find interesting about your comments is that Christ supposedly covers over our sins, imputing justice to us - and now, your bible tells you that even the smallest sin leads to spiritual death? All sin is unrighteousness - but smaller sins do not separate us from God entirely. Otherwise, we'd be in big trouble. From what I gather from our previous posts, you don't think our sins separate us from God at all - and now, even the slightest sin kills our soul?

1 John 5:13 : I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life. (emphasis added)

What things is John writing? Perhaps you should consider reading 1 John quickly. He talks over and over about obeying the commandments. THAT is how we know we are saved and have eternal life... For example:

"By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments" 1 John 5:2-3

Regards

I wrote :EVERYTHING that we have is from God, whether in the natural world or in the supernatural. Thus, when we make a decision, God is involved in some manner. HE formed the intellect, He formed our will. Yet, God does not overwhelm our nature with His Grace.

You responded : Except for the last part, this sounds pretty good. If God does not overwhelm us, then there must some good in us that we are born with that can be used for this cooperation. I think your side says that we are wounded, as opposed to being dead in sin. I believe that scripture alone, especially from Paul, is on our side.

Perhaps you should read my response again...Check out the captitalized word "EVERYTHING". So where am I saying that something comes from us ALONE? What I am saying is that God expects us to USE the gifts He gave us - the power to choose Him. I don't believe that Scripture is on "your side". I believe you are reading Protestant theology into the verses that are just not there - as I have demonstrated with Romans 3 and the Psalms where Paul draws from. WICKED men do not seek God. But do you really think that ALL men do not seek God? The Old Testament would heartily disagree with that.

Well, I'm forced to agree with you completely, {on Baptism's effect on absolutely saving someone for heaven} especially since I don't think baptism has anything to do with salvation. :)

Well, the same holds true for "sinner's prayer" as well. Otherwise, why do so many feel the need to repeat it, or later wonder whether it "took"? This makes the "sinner's prayer" a works-oriented salvational tool. You rely on YOUR OWN faith to determine if God has saved you.

We don't base our assurance at all on subjective feelings. We base it on God's promises in his word, which are detailed at extreme length in the article that Harley gave us

The article merely outlays the promises made to the elect. Again, you are presuming you are of the elect, based on your sinner's prayer. We have time and again exposed this error. As we have stated in 1 John, we can know we are saved by our faith working through love. When we obey the Law of Love - we "know" that God is abiding within us AT THAT MOMENT. But it doesn't follow that He will always remain there - that we won't chase Him out. Again, as you have suggested, we STILL continue to be free to sin. And you again have stated that sin kills the soul - which means that God has left it. Will we enter heaven with a dead soul? If we willingly turn away from God, what happens over and over in the Scriptures? The argument presented by "When we belong to Christ" presumes that we are of the elect - knowledge that we only can HOPE upon, since we do not know God's will for us, or our response in the future to His callings.

Regards

you seem to be denying the friendship between Jesus and His disciples

Intimate details about one's parents are not a necessary prerequisite of friendship. I, incidentally, never shared any such with my roommates, and I have kept friendship with some of them to this day. Remember the "honor thy mother" part in the scripture?

there is no contradiction if you simply interpret away anything in scripture that disagrees with your tradition

It is you who takes the scripture that does not say anything about Mary and Joseph following the birth of Christ, and insists on the least favorable to Mary interpretation, which goes against the historical and linguistic evidence. All I do is explain what "eos" means and how "adelphos" is used in the scripture. Was Lot Abraham's brother?

John lived the longest

Tradition says that John was the youngest and James the oldest. The latter is consistent with James often referred to as one of the elders and acting as bishop of Jerusalem. For more detail please ask Agrarian, who brought it up. The significance of the taking Mary to the care of John is in that if there were other direct sons of hers that would be an insult to them, -- not merely a break with the Jewish tradition.

if James was an older brother, why would that make him unfit for the role?

If James was Mary's stepson from a previous marriage of Joseph, and therefore older, then his age, close to Mary's, would not make him a good caregiver because he might become frail together or even before Mary. On the identity of James, however, the Catohlic and the Orthodox traditions differ somewhat. We beleive that James was the son of Cleopas and the "other Mary", therefore, a cousing of Christ rather than a step brother.

The Brethren of the Lord
St. James the Less

actual sin isn't possible until the age of reason? "Honor thy father and thy mother" means nothing until the age of reason? I have no problem with the idea of them not being held accountable on the same level as us in terms of salvation, but I've never heard of this blank check idea before for children that old. All this prompts me to ask how you define the age of reason?

No, actual sin is not possible before the age of reason. If a child commits an act that would be sinful coming from a mature mind, then it might be a sin of the parent, but never of the child. All the Commandments are to be obeyed by all, but if a child breaks a commandment, he is not sinning. The parent has an obligation to rear the children properly of course, and failure to do so is a sin on the parent.

There is no legalistic definition of the age of reason. When a child shows an ability to act like a moral agent, the parent is advised to confirm the child in the faith and introduce him to sacramental life, including confessions. It is a gradual process. It is generally thought that the age of reason arrives between 7 and 14, depending on the child and the circumstance of upbringing. Even in an adult, the mechanism of invincible ignorance continues to operate in one who is prevented by circumstance to learn the full extent of the Divine Law. It is assumed though that one past the age of reason is at least vincible as regards the Natural Law, such as the Ten Commandments.

I love invincible ignorance

You losing it rapidly...

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