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

Eve was not imperfect. She was simply lacking in knowledge and wisdom

If Eve was perfect (i.e. not imperfect), how could she lack anything?

One does not need a dictionary to realize that anything that is perfect lacks nothing. If she were perfect, HD, she would be God.

However, if she lacked knowledge and wisdom then she is not perfect, is she? The truth is, Eve was simply human. If Adam and Ever were created perfect, they would not need God. It is not that God made made imperfectly, for God does not make anything imperfectly. He made man in such a way that he is fully human only when he is cleaved to God, but not by wisdom or special knowledge (gnostic error). The knowledge of God is not hidden, but revealed.

Even eve told the serpent that God said they must not eat of the tree. So, she knew God, she knew what God commanded Adam; therefore claiming lack of knowledge or wisdom on her part is meaningless. She lacked faith (and so did Adam) and obedience that comes from faith. And, that is something we all can relate to.

God did not deceive anyone. God simply ask who could deceive Ahab...

Your reasoning fascinates me! So, if I hire someone to do a "dirty job" for me I am not responsible? If everything happens on God's "watch" then everything is ultimately His responsibility, including deceit, whether it is direct or indirect.

What really amazes me, further, is that you give a demon credit for making a free choice to do the job of deceiving, yet when it comes to humans you say we do only what God wants us to do. Did, then, God make the evil spirit deceive Ahab, or did the evil spirit make that choice too happily on his own?

If it is all God's doing (i.e. if the demon was compelled by God) to do the deception, then it was not the demon who did it but God through the demon; the demon here being a passive conduit of God's will.

But that's not what you are actually saying. You are saying that God did not deceive anyone, but simply asked who would. From a moral point of view that is one and the same.

You will NEVER be able to reconcile the God of the Old Testament against the New Testament under your "God loves us and has a wonderful plan for our lives" soteriology

Perhaps, but the fact remains the two Testaments are very different and very unlike. The Church interprets the OT through the prism of the NT teaching, and specifically the references made to the OT in the Gospels and Epistles. That is because, like it or not, it is the New Testament that defines Christianity; the Old testament leads and hints at it.

Yet later, you tell me that in the case of a married couple with children that the Church won't "readily" grant an annulment. You go on to say that separation is permitted under canon law, but not remarriage.

A couple who has been married for a number of years, say over ten, will less likely be able to get an annulment - with all things otherwise being equal. In any case, the Church would much prefer that people work it out.

But remarriage is, in practice, the ultimate point to annulments, isn't it? Without it, a Catholic cannot get remarried and still be a communicating member of the Catholic Church. How often, really, are annulments sought in cases where neither member of the couple is wanting to remarry?

I don't know such statistics. An annulment is not necessary if one merely separates, so in one way, you are correct. People don't normally seek annulments unless they realize that the first "marriage" will cause an impediment to a potential second one. But this is not always true. However, people have a way of doing things for different reasons than what the Church intends.

Almost by definition, a couple that is getting divorced does not involve people who are deeply involved in the life of Christ through the Church.

It would seem that way, but it is not necessarily true.

He always forgave sins, restored them to fellowship, and told them to "go and sin no more." This no more means that Christ was approving of those sins than does the fact that the Orthodox Church allows up to two remarriages mean that we approve of divorce, and it is basically what the Orthodox Church does in the process of granting an ecclesiastical divorce.

I did not intend on attacking the Orthodox's ecclesiastical process for such matters by talking about Catholic annulments. I am certainly not an expert on Canon Law. All I know is what the Church teaches about such matters. The Church teaches that abortion is a grave evil. Yet, people do it. Does that mean we do away with the law that abortion is gravely evil? No. We call people to live the life of Christ. Being a disciple of Christ entails dying to self. Yes, many people will have a difficult time with this teaching. But if they leave the Eucharist over it, how strong was their faith to begin with? I'd prefer not to make such broad generalizations, even though I am... I do not envy the priest who has to counsel a couple who are on the verge of a civil divorce, a young couple.

Regards

I will do this one more time, FK, and make it as simple as possible. According to your theology the following must be true:

(1) what God wills, God makes

(2) everything that exists is according to His will

(3) ergo, God wills and makes everything including sin/evil

Yet you take exception to evil being of God, which is not consistent. Show me why is everything for God's pleasure, and purpose, except evil.

Yes, I take full exception to evil being of God, and disagree with your three steps. You are speaking of evil as if it were a thing, like a rock. It is not. Rather, evil the absence of a thing, namely God, just as a hole is the absence of dirt, darkness is the absence of light, or cold is the absence of heat. All are real, of course, but they are not "created" in the normal sense, they occur because something is removed.

Since God cannot be removed from Himself, there is no evil He can "make". Those who are not of the elect will choose evil (separation) because that is in their nature through the original sin. Those of the elect, after salvation, may choose to separate occasionally, but God always brings them back into the fold.

If you can not resist God, then if God says to you "kill your children for My pleasure and purpose" you would do it? Preposterous, right?

I would pray for the faith of Abraham. :)

Well, then, explain to me how does Calvinism or whatever it is that you propose here, explain Hitler? Was he doing God's work unto His pleasure and purpose?

Hitler is the result of satan being the "god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4). God allowed Hitler, just as He allowed satan to temporarily ruin Job. Therefore, if it was anyone's work besides Hitler's, it was satan's work, not God's work.

It's our decision but God already knows our decision.

I agree.

He made us so we will act just as He predicts we will act. He is not surprised

God doesn't need to predict anything! He sees everything in time as one event - the Creation to the Final end seen in the blink of an eye...What's to predict? His decisions are "based" on an event that is equally present to His view!

Deut 30:19, "Choose life..." is the outward calling of God

A call that people refuse to heed, as you point out in Dt. 31:16. God sees that the people will NOT choose life. Where is the difficulty here? And God is not "determining" the entire nation's end! We DO know that many will NOT worship false gods.

It is similar to Noah preaching for 125 years all the while he's building an ark that will house seven

Again, your example does not take away man's freedom. God knows what man will choose because He sees it all at once. His command to Noah and the end of the flood are all one event to God. There is NO TIME that binds God. It is all available to Him.

God commands, but then He must give what He commands. God commands us to have faith in Him. Yet He is the one who gives us our faith. Instead of reaching inside ourselves for something that just isn't there, we should be praying to God to give us the thing that He has commanded.

I agree. God gives us the ability to choose Him. Faith comes from God as a gift. Then, He commands us to use it. But He doesn't force us to use His gifts. He knows how we will use them, but this doesn't mean that we are not choosing one or the other.

Regards

"It is not. Rather, evil the absence of a thing, namely God, just as a hole is the absence of dirt, darkness is the absence of light, or cold is the absence of heat. All are real, of course, but they are not "created" in the normal sense, they occur because something is removed."

Sorry, FK, wrong. Evil is quite real, very tangible and substantial. You recite, I am sure, the Lord's Prayer. In English, the final words are "...but deliver us from evil." The original Greek says, "alla rusai hmas apo tou ponhrou", "...but deliver us from the evil ONE."

Evil, my brother, is not merely the absence of something, even the "absence" of God (which is of course an impossibility)

Hm. Convince me.

Here's the problem. God did not create evil. There is no other creator. Evil therefore is absence of God, rather than a created substance. Evangelist John explains the paradox by describing God as light and evil as darkness, -- absence of light -- in the first chapter of his gospel.

We can, of course, say that Satan, who was created an angel, remains tangible and substantial even following his fall from grace. This is the usage in the Creed (*). But we cannot blanketly reject the formulation that evil is an absence rather than a presence.

(*) The Russian translation of the Creed dispenses with "evil" altogether and pleas to "deliver us from the deceiver".

Hm. Convince me. Here's the problem. God did not create evil. There is no other creator. Evil therefore is absence of God, rather than a created substance

Kolo did not say that evil is a creature of God; evil is a state. If evil is absence of God, how does that make God ominpresent? Evil is a state of mind that rejects God. It is not something where God excluded Himself. It is an act of will, free will, whether it be demonic or human. If we cannot reject God, then our will is not free, as the Calvinsits claim (and therefore there can be no evil). But the Scriputre show clearly that we can reject God, thereby giving rise to evil.

Demons are said to howl outside of the monasteries on Mt Athos. And the Desert Fathers speak of them as very real.

There is no mention of the evil one in the Creed, annalex. There is no place for satan in our Creed! You are confusing the Lord's Prayer with the Creed. Yes, the Slavonic version says no izbavi nas ot lukavago (but rescue us from the deceiver). The deceiver is the name of the evil one. I am not sure what your point is.

" If evil is absence of God, how does that make God ominpresent? Evil is a state of mind that rejects God. It is not something where God excluded Himself. It is an act of will, free will, whether it be demonic or human. If we cannot reject God, then our will is not free, as the Calvinsits claim (and therefore there can be no evil). But the Scriputre show clearly that we can reject God, thereby giving rise to evil."

Exactly and precisely my point. Thanks, Kosta.

" Demons are said to howl outside of the monasteries on Mt Athos. And the Desert Fathers speak of them as very real."

The holy nuns at the monastery outside my maternal village say the very same thing. Holiness attracts demons.

I meant Our Father, of course. Sorry.

Evil is a state of mind that rejects God. It is not something where God excluded Himself. It is an act of will, free will, whether it be demonic or human.

Indeed. That it is. But how is it different from absence of light, if you recall that in order to create that absence a barrier to light must be erected?

We agree that Satan is "very real, tangible and substantial", and not mere absence of good. We should nevertheless steer clear of the manichean duality which would place evil/Satan on the same ontological level as good/God.

"...the Church would much prefer that people work it out."

Of course. But at the point that annulments are being sought, the Church really doesn't have much of a chance to encourage that, does she? By this point, the person seeking the annulment has decided that he/she wants to remarry, and probably has the person picked out.

And of course abortion is a sin. But does the fact that the a Catholic woman can step into a confessional, confess that sin, receive absolution, do penance, and eventally return to receiving communion mean that the Catholic Church has approved of abortion? Of course not.

A better comparison would be if the Catholic woman got an abortion, went to the priest, and made her case her understanding of it was imperfect at the time because of the influence of the surrounding world. And then the Catholic priest, instead of giving a penance and giving absolution, makes the decision (perhaps with the help of a Tribunal) that actually no abortion had *really* ever taken place.

We don't need to kick this dead horse much more. I didn't feel that you were attacking Orthodox practice, and I'm not attacking the idealism of Catholic practice.

Orthodoxy and Catholicism both hold up the same ideal (and as I said before, if anything, the Orthodox ideal is more stringent, since it discourages any remarriage whatsoever.) The way we convey the ideal and deal with the realities of life is simply quite different. We do it by holding our clergy to the highest standard as an example to the laity, by educating the laity on what the Church expects, and by dealing with the fallout of a fallen world and of people who have fallen away from the Church in the ways that I have described.

Catholicism requires the strict ideal of everyone, and deals with the same fallout by finding ways to explain that these marriages were never really marriages in the first place.

Traditional Catholics view the Orthodox approach as being one that gives approval or license to the sin of divorce.

Orthodox tend to see the Catholic approach as verging on a dishonesty made necessary by a legalistic approach to the matter.

But then, that is much of our disagreement in a nutshell, isn't it? The lack of centralization, codification, consistency, etc. in Orthodoxy drives Catholics crazy. Catholic juridical approaches to the faith drive us crazy. Fortunately, we are both happy where we are.

Regards,

A

But how is it different from absence of light, if you recall that in order to create that absence a barrier to light must be erected?

It is a not a mere absence of light. I think Kolo made that point clear.

We should nevertheless steer clear of the manichean duality which would place evil/Satan on the same ontological level as good/God

I don't think anyone was trying to do such a thing on this Forum as far as I can tell. Evil is a product of free will and is, ironically, a proof that free will does exist (and is a gift from God). For, if God controls our will, then it is not free, and man cannot be evil.

The truth is that we can reject God, but that this temporal and earthly "triumph" is an illusion, because we intrinsically know that everything material is corruptible and will succumb to time by dying and decaying.

Evil exists only by our will and the will of fallen angels, and not but the will of God.

But where exactly does the Bible say that an infant CANNOT be baptised?

I suppose I don't know that it is specifically prohibited. However, in all the examples in the Bible of someone getting baptized, were they not all passed the age of reason, and believers? I just look to the examples that are given.

By denying the literal, intended sense of Jesus' Words, you do injustice to the passage.

HA! Listen to the pot ... :)

My point is that an extreme experience CAN lead to a person falling away from the faith - even a missionary who believes they are strong in the faith. That is why we shouldn't take our faith for granted (or our salvation - which we HOPE for).

I don't think anyone here thinks it is OK to take faith for granted. It is a loving gift that should be appreciated over and over again. That is one of the reasons sanctification is so valuable to us. It helps us to continually be appreciative. In the case above, where someone suffers an extreme experience, who would you say is responsible for the falling away? Is it the free will decision of the individual?

If God came down in glorious form right now, who would disbelieve?

I would assume plenty of people! :) I know I have asked myself a hundred times how people could have witnessed things like the parting of the red sea, and then a short time later organized a full blown orgy! Aren't there plenty of examples like this in the OT? And then, every time I think of myself as being so high and mighty I remember something I have done as a Christian and been put right back in my place. :)

Did you force your wife to love you, or did you prove your love to her and allow her the opportunity to turn to you? Even though you "knew" it was in her best interest to marry you?!

I simply did what God does. I gave her an offer she couldn't refuse. :)

FK: "Do you ever worry about it? [salvation]"

Not really. ... As long as I have not mortally sinned, I plod on, "knowing" that today, I am in Christ.

Thanks for your full answer. This reminds me of a question I had about confession earlier, but I think I forgot to ask. :) Is there a standardized protocol for when to go to confession? I mean, is it done on an "as needed" basis, or is it better to go regularly, say, once a week or once a month?

We are always children of the Father, even those who are baptised and subsequently fall away. Consider the Prodigal Son parable. When if famine DIDN'T strike the land? Would the son have returned? Probably not. My point is that sons and daughters sometimes separate THEMSELVES from their parents, they disinherit themselves.

To refresh your memory, only because I am so far behind, this came from your statement "To us, Baptism is for the remission of all sins. It makes us children of God." I then responded by asking if you meant foster children. My point was to say that under your system, God's children can fall away and cease being His children, or as you clarify, "disinherit themselves". I disagree concerning the elect.

Let's use your example of the Prodigal Son. And, let's say you are right and that if the famine didn't come the son would never have returned. Would that have meant that the son disinherited himself? I would say that's impossible because the son already received his rightful inheritance before he even left. The father sealed his faith in the child from the beginning. (Of course, the analogy breaks down a little because the father did not have the independent power to bring the son back, but God certainly does, and I believe He uses it on His elect.) It was impossible for the son to disinherit himself, just as it is impossible for the elect to do the same. No one can snatch us out of His hands.

The Apostles taught infant baptism to Christians. In the letters that they address to Corinth or Ephesus, they never mention this. However, it becomes a generally accepted practice, taken for granted, sort of like when Catholics do the sign of the cross. We just do it, perhaps not knowing its origin.

Thank you very much for your comments on this subject.

If the origin is uncertain, how can you know the Apostles taught infant baptism? You can take certainty from what was only passed down orally, until the writers you cite? Tertullian could have been right, but how can you know for sure? I take it that since I'm not the first to ask, that this is what Councils are for.

Your reason is free to choose God or to choose sin. So, the root of sin is in the free will. But without it, we would only be robots.

Then why does every purely human man who has ever lived always chosen sin over God without His help? (For stuff like this, I'll just agree to leave Mary out of it :) It's 100% to zero, right? How can that be if free will could theoretically lead anywhere?

Why do you equate God's full control to our being robots? In the normal use of the word, robots are incapable of love and are not sentient beings. We all know that humans clearly are the opposite. As I have said, we truly do experience the free will you speak of, but it is God who is in full control, irrespective of our "wills".

Your reason is not driven by God. Your heart may be, but not your reason. That's why the crux of the faith (no pun intended here!) is love and not intellect.

There is good reason and bad reason, right? When we use good reason, where does that come from? From where is it driven? Ourselves? I would disagree. Anything with "good" in front of it comes only from God. Even if you say that we were born with good reason, where did THAT come from?

If Adam and Ever were created perfect, they would not need God.

So, she knew God, she knew what God commanded Adam

precisely

Gen 2:16-17 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat , for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Gen 3:3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"

Undoubtedly when the serpent handed the fruit to Eve and she didn't die she probably questioned God's word. She was deceived into thinking the words were not true.

Did, then, God make the evil spirit deceive Ahab, or did the evil spirit make that choice too happily on his own?

Quite frankly I don't know. This all involves God's plan and why things happen as they do. All I can say is what the scriptures state. God wanted Ahab to be deceived and there was this spirit. I'm not prepare to dismiss this episode simply because it doesn't fit my soteriology.

You are saying that God did not deceive anyone, but simply asked who would. From a moral point of view that is one and the same.

I would caution you about apply our warped sense of "morality" to God. Man is not moral. God is. If the Bible states this is the way God acted, which it does, then it is perfectly just and moral according to God standards regardless of what we may think. It should be an indication to us that we need to understand the way God works better so that we correct our own beliefs rather then dismiss it.

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.