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

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

[HarleyD]

Thanks, that narrows it down for me. I'm swamp but I'm pinging myself to look this up. It is a tad interesting to me.

[jo kus]

Of course this "Apostolic Tradition" was discarded AFTER the Apostles words were committed to text.

Sorry, brother, you are contradicting your own Sola Scriptura doctrine. NOWHERE does the Bible tell us that oral traditions are abrogated or discarded once Scripture is written. Paul writes to the Thessalonians - WRITES to them - to HOLD ON TO THE TRADITIONS, BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN. This doesn't sound like oral traditions have been done away with by the Bible - only by Protestants.

The fact of the matter remains that Apostolic Traditions that were not written in what we now call the Bible were NEVER done away with - that is a Protestant tradition of men, as defined by Christ, because it keeps people away from part of the Word of God, just as Korban did for the Jews.

It would be foolish to trust the veracity of oral teachings passed down from generation to generation by fallible men when the inerrant WORD of GOD is available.

Apostolic Tradition doesn't mean it is oral teachings to this day. It means that they were not explicitly recorded in Scriptures. They were written down, just not in the letters that have been collected into what we now call Scriptures. Also, we rely on the Spirit to ensure that they remain passed down completely and accurately to the degree that the Spirit desires.

It would be equally foolish to trust historical documents that are not the inerrant WORD of GOD as equal to the WORD of GOD.

The Word of God is not only written! Read the Acts of the Apostles. They refer to the "Word of God" and do not refer back to Sacred Scripture, but to the proclamation of the Gospel. IF the Gospel is from God, then who cares what form it comes to us in? God will protect it IF it is from HIM!

Regards

[jo kus]

Inspired writing came first, tradition next.

You disappoint me. I had thought you realized that the Church's teachings began BEFORE the "inspired writings" came to be... For the New Testament, this was AT LEAST 20 years, and for the Old Testament, in some cases, it was HUNDREDS of years...

God has always taught through His People, the Church. The books came later, but the People are the official interpretators of these Scriptures and it is THEY who vouch for these letters and their authenticate teachings. Or do you believe in the Da Vinci code?

Regards

[Agrarian]

These things can be found in the Christian Classic Ethereal Library on-line.

Homily 57 on St. Matthew 17 can be found at this link. I won't copy the entire passage, which is found at the beginning of the homily.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.htm

Here is St. John of Damascus on the Antichrist, with the relevant passage about Enoch and Elijah toward the end:

"CHAPTER XXVI. Concerning the Antichrist.

It should be known that the Antichrist is bound to come. Every one, therefore, who confesses not that the Son of God came in the flesh and is perfect God and became perfect man, after being God, is Antichrist.

But in a peculiar and special sense he who comes at the consummation of the age is called Antichrist. First, then, it is requisite that the Gospel should be preached among all nations, as the Lord said, and then he will come to refute the impious Jews. For the Lord said to them: I am come in My Father's name and ye receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. And the apostle says, Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved, for this cause Gad shall send them a strong delusion that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. The Jews accordingly did not receive the Lord Jesus Christ who was the Son of God and God, but receive the impostor who calls himself God.

For that he will assume the name of God, the angel teaches Daniel, saying these words, Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers. And the apostle says: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son, of perdition: who opposeth and exalleth himself above all that is called Gad or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God; in the temple of God he said; not our temple, but the old Jewish temple. For he will come not to us but to the Jews: not for Christ or the things of Christ: wherefore he is called Antichrist.

First, therefore, it is necessary that the Gospel should be preached among all nations: And then shall that wicked one be revealed, even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, whom the Lord shall consume with the word of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming. The devil himself, therefore does not become man in the way that the Lord was made man. God forbid! but he becomes man as the offspring of fornication and receiveth all the energy of Satan. For God, foreknowing the strangeness of the choice that he would make, allows the devil to take up his abode in him.

He is, therefore, as we said, the offspring of fornication and is nurtured in secret, and on a sudden he rises up and rebels and assumes rule. And in the beginning of his rule, or rather tyranny, he assumes the role of sanctity. But when he becomes master he persecutes the Church of God and displays all his wickedness. But he will come with signs and lying wonders, fictitious and not real, and he will deceive and lead away from the living God those whose mind rests on an unsound and unstable foundation, so that even the elect shall, if it be possible, be made to stumble.

But Enoch and Elias the Thesbite shall be sent and shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, that is, the synagogue to our Lord Jesus Christ and the preaching of the apostles: and they [Enoch and Elias] will be destroyed by him [the antichrist]. And the Lord shall come out of heaven, just as the holy apostles beheld Him going into heaven perfect God and perfect man, with glory and power, and will destroy the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, with the breath of His mouth. Let no one, therefore, look for the Lord to come from earth, but out of Heaven, as He himself has made sure.

[AlbionGirl]

Jerome was a devoted follower of both Origen and Eusebius.

But wasn't that only for a limited period of time? Jerome pretty much accuses Origen of orchestrating a situation in which Origen purposely made himself needed and loved in the Church and then turned around and committed his 'heresy.' But heresy or not, he and Tertullian (the first Protestant, as Paul Johnson notes him to be), are still, however small in part, indispensable to understanding the early Faith, IMO.

It was Rome, not the Orthodox, who instituted practices like the sale of indulgences or the sale of high clerical office. And these practices were rooted directly in the authority of various popes. Hence, the term popery. The Orthodox appear to be far more conservative, to have institutional safeguards against unscrupulous or ignorant individuals. It's a pity that attempts in the West to reform Rome's abuses and arrogance failed for centuries prior to the Reformation.

It wasn't just the sale of indulgences, as offensive and seemingly absent of Christ as the whole affair seemed to be. It was the mortuaries too (talk about breaking a person's heart, when you read of them!), and perhaps most offensive of all was the murdering of people, however few or many, just because they were in possession of a Bible, and most especially when you take into account St. Jerome's declaration that to be ignorant of Scripture is to be ignorant of Christ. I mean it's really hard to look at that, and not have the sense that the Church's corruption went straight to the bone, and was not remediable (sp?;word?), at the time. Then you read of the early Church as regards substitution of penance by one man for another, and you see how the indulgences evolved. One thing I've never understood though, is how prayer became to be viewed as a penance. Why does saying an Our Father constitute as penance? It's anything but a penance, IMO. If I were a priest dispensing penance, I would suggest the person shovel his neighbors walk everyday for a week or so, or something similar, depending on the nature of the offense.

As far as the Papacy is concerned; first the Pope was the Vicar of St. Peter, then he became the Vicar of Christ, somewhere around the 9th or 10th century, IIRC, so if there is a price to pay for the Protestant schism, at the time of Judgement, the Catholic Church will likely pay the lion's share of that tab, because they'd had all the power and with all the power came all the responsibility. It could also be very much a part of God's plan to have this kind of ecclesial discord, and maybe there won't be any collective price to pay at all.

All that being said, the Catholic Church preserved the Faith for century, upon century, upon century, and that's no small and meaningless feat, amenable to any present or future ash heap.

[Agrarian]

"If the Church knew that a book was written by John, and they knew that what John had written was inspired, then doesn't it seem a bit obvious that the first thing created was the inspired written word by which the fathers knew to be inspired? (Pardon my redundancy.) Inspired writing came first, tradition next."

How is this possible? Do you mean to say that the teachings that are found in the New Testament were somehow completely new to the Church when the Apostles wrote them? What, exactly, was preached that converted so many prior to the writing of the Scriptures?

The faith of the Apostles was first in unwritten form -- it was true, whole, intact, inerrant, and infallible. Their preaching converted countless people.

When the Apostles began to write their epistles, they were putting these teachings into written form. They were inspired, and their writings were Scriptural. They began to be recognized as such even while the Apostles themselves were alive, as the reference in II Peter 3:16 demonstrates.

You are right that it took no Council or anything to recognize the New Testament Scriptures for the most part. Again, as the above verse shows that. But some writings were more universally recognized as Scriptural than others. Others were not, apparently, as universally and easily recognized as Scripture -- as the slight variations in the lists from the early centuries demonstrate.

I really don't see how it is possible to think that the faith of the Apostles (which is what we call Tradition) didn't precede the writing down of these teachings in the form of inspired Scriptures.

[wmfights]

"The Word of God is not only written!"
__________________________________

Here in lies the problem. If you have the written inerrant WORD of GOD to draw on or what an institution of man says the truth is which do you draw on? If your other documents, such as the Protoevanglium of James, were the inerrant word of GOD then they would be in the SCRIPTURES.

We have too many instances where church leaders and their institutions were in error to place our blind trust in them.

[kosta50]

Regarding Collosians 1:14, the original Greek text^a

en w ecomen thn apolutrwsin thn afesin twn amartiwn

does not have "through His blood", (dia tou aimatos autou), so I don't see how its absence in non-KJV versions can be construed as "liberal."

Textus Receptus and KJV being its offshoot, are based on "late Byzantine" copies of the NT which the scholars tended to favor "just because" over earlier ones.

^abased on earlier Alexandrian versions.

Surely these fine differences are not without an effect on how we understand Scriputre. With so many human additions and delitions of the copies of copies of the NT, we really don't read the same Scriputre.

[kosta50]

The phrase "through His blood" is not found in either the Jesuit or American Revised Versions; its omission can be traced to Origen (200 A.D.), who expressly denies that either the body or soul of our Lord was offered as the price of our redemption. Eusebius was a devoted follower of Origen; and Eusebius edited the Vatican Manuscript

Didache (c. 70-100 AD) omits to mention that "breaking of the bread" and drinking wine during Eucharist is sacramental, or that it is Real Presence in Body and Blood of Christ. Perhaps that was just how some Christians "understood" it. Which is why 300 years later the Church had to convene the first Ecumenical Council to clear up some of the seirous misconceptions that evolved.

[jo kus]

If you have the written inerrant WORD of GOD to draw on or what an institution of man says the truth is which do you draw on? If your other documents, such as the Protoevanglium of James, were the inerrant word of GOD then they would be in the SCRIPTURES.

What is wonderful is that the CHURCH is the one who said that the Protoevangelium is NOT Scriptures. Nor is the Gospel of Judas or any other of those garbage Gnostic writings. Isn't it great to have a Church to tell us this? Otherwise, we wouldn't KNOW WHICH was Scriptures and which wasn't!

Regards

[Agrarian]

"Fascinating find."

Actually, it's really not a very relevant example, and it doesn't speak against the Jesuits at all -- and mind you, I can bash Jesuits with the best of them.

As you know, I largely disregard the Alexandrian textual tradition as a curiosity that is of academic interest only, since it is very sparse, corrupt, and variable compared to the Orthodox Byzantine textual tradition. It is preferred by modern textual scholars primarily because it is has a number of readings that are less orthodox than those found in the Byzantine textual tradition -- their academic "cover" is that the handful of uncial manuscripts they prefer are quite old.

It is elementary textual scholarship, though, to understand that the oldest manuscript does not equal the oldest reading -- but there is no point trying to disabuse modern textual scholars of their quaint notions. They know exactly what they are doing. (These are the same people who disregard the LXX readings of the OT -- even though our MSS of it are far older than any Hebrew MS. The KJV translators actually made much more use of the LXX readings to clarify Hebrew texts than do modern translations.)

But I digress. This passage is one of those relatively rare examples of where the Textus Receptus does *not* follow the Byzantine majority Greek text -- and where there is no difference between the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts. The phrase "through his blood" is found only in a minority of manuscripts -- the majority of Byzantine miniscules do not contain it.

You will note that the Majority Text compilers place this phrase in Colossians in parentheses -- indicating that it is *not* a Majority text reading, but one they feel it is important to include, whether from theological motivations, out of respect for the Vulgate/TR tradition, or because the reading is found in a sizable minority of Byzantine MSS.

The most influential textual tradition in which "through his blood" was found is actually consistently found is (drum roll please)... the Latin Vulgate. So I find it hard to find any nefarious Catholic machinations at work here. You certainly can't blame Jerome for it, as far as I can tell. I would guess that Jerome was using a variant Greek manuscript into which it had been inserted.

My guess is that the Jesuit Bible was just referring to a different Greek manuscript -- one that actually was in the majority tradition.

The phrase would appear to have been inserted into Colossians (whether accidentally or intentionally) in order to parallel the wording in Ephesians 1:7. If the effect was to minimize the doctrine that is concerned, Ephesians 1:7 would have had to be doctored also -- and I am unaware of any textual tradition of that verse that does not contain "through his blood."

In any event, with or without the phrase, the theology is the same, since the phrase stands as is in Ephesians.

[George W. Bush]

Fascinating find. It's that kind of "translation" that gives the game up and shows the true spirit behind most rewrites, whether they are contemporary or centuries old.

One of the interesting things you find is how arbitrary the readings often are in the modernist BSO's (bible-shaped objects). They often vary considerably or borrow from previous versions. Sometimes for no apparent reason, they'll even follow the KJV though the other BSO's don't and it's clear that their so-called superior manuscripts don't support such a reading.

Another thing you notice is that certain passages acquire a durable effect and that translators are rather loathe to change it even if they know it isn't as clear or aptly phrased as it should be. This criticism can even be applied to a few passages of the KJV, particularly some of the language which has become archaic to modern readers.

[kosta50]

If the effect was to minimize the doctrine that is concerned, Ephesians 1:7 would have had to be doctored also -- and I am unaware of any textual tradition of that verse that does not contain "through his blood

Maybe it was a transcription error. After all, Ephesians and Colossians are among the Epistles (including Hebrews) whose authorship is disputed by some of the academics you dismiss as purely driven by an anti-Orthodox, in particular, or anti-Christian agenda in general.

If multiple authorship is possible, then transcription error is not impossible.

You aptly observe that in this case the theology is the same, i.e. unaffected by the addition (because the concepts contained in these verses are reinforced elsewhere), the very existence of such discrepancies shows human corruption of Scripture.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "Mary could have chosen to commit mortal sin, then not ask forgiveness for it, and would still be saved?"

No, of course not.

I was responding to your saying: "Jesus' pain was salvific. Likewise when we experience pain we apply it to our salvation in imitation of Christ. Mary, already saved, had nothing to apply in that sense."

Knowing that you see the word "salvation" as only a temporary state, subject to being lost at any moment, I knew that people have to continually "apply" deeds and sacraments in order to achieve full salvation at the end. Since you told me that Mary had no need to "apply" herself toward her salvation, because she already had it, I inferred that you meant "in full". I inferred you were saying that Mary would not have been "required" to fulfill equivalent sacraments or do good deeds because she was already saved on a permanent basis at conception.

FK: "[John Paul] really means that Christ's redemptive work on the cross only has any value until the next (mortal) sin."

No, he doesn't. Christ's redemptive work is sufficient to save every sinner who wishes to be saved.

And you accused me of not addressing the comment posted??? Your last sentence fully avoids what is an important difference between us. You leave out the critical point that for you, any person who "wishes to be saved" might not "wish it" 5 minutes from now, thus nullifying Christ's work for that person. Christ's work becomes immediately insufficient.

I am saying that under your system, Christ's redemptive work is never sufficient on a permanent basis, it is only sufficient on a conditional basis. Under your system, it is like saying that if a football team runs back the opening kickoff for a touchdown, that it has a "sufficient" lead to win the game, with 59:45 remaining to be played. Any football fan will tell you how often he/she has heard someone say such a thing.

My perception is that you do not see Christ's work as sufficient, but rather ONLY necessary. It takes cooperation, and help from man to be truly sufficient. Some believers will sin mortally and not ask for forgiveness. They will be lost, even though they "wished" to be saved. So, the linchpin of salvation has less to do with Christ, since His redemptive work is done and will not change. The linchpin of salvation is really in the hands of man.

FK: "If Mary was the first to be redeemed, then heaven was empty before Christ? All the faithful of the OT were rotting in purgatory until Christ?"

If you have been following the recent Agrarian's posts, see for example, 6756 addressed among others to you, you would not be asking.

That is not correct. I did read Agrarian's post and he was only representing the Orthodox position. I know the Orthodox do not believe in "purgatory" as such, so I was asking you for the Catholic view. You did not respond to Agrarian with a post saying "yes, we Catholics believe that too", so how was I to know? Your link to the article on "Limbo" appears to be similar and does distinguish between purgatory. So, this was my answer and thank you. :) I never knew what limbo was.

[Forest Keeper]

The Catholic concept of Mary as a co-redeemer depends partially on the fact that Mary suffered ENORMOUSLY as a result of giving her will to the Will of the Father at the foot of the cross.

There can be no doubt that Mary suffered tremendous mental anguish at what she witnessed. None. I'm just not sure how this aids in the idea of her being a co-redeemer. Was her suffering worse than that of any other human? I mean, I could play ball with you if you wanted to make a comparison to her pain, as if she was a martyr. I know that scriptures say that martyrs are in a separate class, so I could entertain the idea of their sufferings being comparable. But even martyrs have nothing to do with redemption, so I don't see how Mary's suffering can put her into such a one-woman class.

The Scriptures tell us over and over that we know we abide in Christ when we obey Him, His commandments. What sort of "saving faith" is it when we do not respond to our King and refuse to obey Him? Wishful thinking.

Yes, I fully agree. The person with saving faith will want to obey God, and will do so, albeit with mistakes here and there.

Mary contributed to our salvation in the same manner as Eve participated in our destruction. Both woman were "bystanders" who were not needed - BUT - participate in the action just the same. This is straight from the writers of the second century AD...

Well, the NT doesn't give Eve any "credit" for helping in our destruction, does it? Wasn't it pretty much pinned all on Adam? Neither does the NT give any "credit" to Mary in our redemption. I mean, what Mary went through was "statistically insignificant" compared to what Jesus went through, would you agree? Therefore, I don't understand all the fuss to bring Mary into something that really only belongs to Christ.

That's what Hades was for, a place of shades. The righteous of the OT were not allowed into heaven until AFTER Christ's saving death. Otherwise, Christ's death would not be necessary, now, would it? If people were in heaven BEFORE Christ's death, then there is another way into heaven, another name under whom the world is saved. Is that your proposal?

No, that is not my proposal. :) So, looping in what Alex has said, is Hades and Limbo the same thing? ... Christ's death was absolutely necessary for both the OT righteous, as well as for us. But it appears that you are placing God into time here. If for God every moment is one, then why can't the redemptive work of Christ be also effective "immediately" for those in the OT? From God's POV, which is what we're talking about, Christ's death was "complete" before the Incarnation, so to speak.

[Forest Keeper]

Cremation is forbidden unless the state absolutely requires it (as in Japan.) ... Cremation is a pagan practice that symbolically rejects the idea of the resurrection of the body.

Thank you both for your comments on this. For a while I did wonder whether cremation could have any effect on a resurrected body. But then I thought of those who were vaporized in nuclear explosions, and of course 9/11. So, I figured it couldn't really make a difference in the end. And I agree that if you do it on purpose, then that really kind of is spitting in the face of the idea that we all believe. I want to be planted and take up space anyway, that's my personality! :)

[Forest Keeper]

[On some being graced more than others, and spiritual gifts:] It would be impossible to say that a bishop has been given "more" of anything, just different gifts. God can give gifts, but does man always use them?

I was specifically thinking in the area of discernment. Since I do not agree patently with everything that Calvin and Luther said, I cannot say that their gifts of discernment were better on every issue than "all Protestants". However, I could say that in general terms their gifts of discernment were greater than mine. I mean, I "could" have studied all the languages and read the texts to the degree they did, but I really doubt that I would have come up with writings as profound as theirs. For me, it would be the same with medicine or rocket science. I could try with all my might, but it wouldn't "happen".

Likewise, there were Bishop Fathers who wrote things that you would not agree with, and so their gifts were not wholly better. However, since you do agree with many of their other writings, would you not say that, in general, they had a higher level of this gift? Why else would these Saints be held up so high? Are you saying that these Fathers, and all Popes, etc., were the only ones to accept the gifts from God that were available to everyone? That doesn't seem to match the human experience.

[kosta50]

From God's POV, which is what we're talking about, Christ's death was "complete" before the Incarnation, so to speak

Actually, in this case, no. God's salvific work affects us in real time, through Divine Economy.

[kosta50]

And I agree that if you do it on purpose, then that really kind of is spitting in the face of the idea that we all believe

The Church opposes cremation on the grounds of symbolism (as perceived by the early fathers). It does not affect God's ability to fashion new bodies from the dust of the earth. Bodies are destructable. There is nothing holy about the bones. It's the symbolic denial of the resurrection that so many Orthodox fathers objected to. It's the intention that counts. That's all.

[Forest Keeper]

My sarcasm meter is pegging right now... We don't believe that man can "always" override what God wants. We believe that God permits man to have evil thoughts, to sin. But He certainly is not denied the ability to intervene when He sees fit.

I really wasn't trying to be sarcastic (this time! :) When I said "always" I meant "at any given time". I know that you believe that God always HAS the power to intervene in anything, but I thought you would say that God would not ever use it "against" man, if man's free will would be quashed. You know how many times I have read on this thread that God loves us so much that He will not force us to do (or not do) anything, so this is where my comment is coming from.

FK: "I can't believe God left it to chance that all the authors of the Bible would never choose to ignore His grace on what to write."

Again, you are forgetting God's foresight. He sees everything before it happens in time - and KNOWS what is necessary to happen for His will to be done. He knows what events must occur for a man to choose "x" - if that is God's desire.

Well if I'm interpreting you correctly, then we agree. When you said that God "knows what events must occur ...", I take that to mean you are saying the fix was in because God caused those events. I am fine with that. Whether God put the fix in while they were literally writing, or whether God set up the billions of details in advance to get them to write what He wanted is all the same to me. Either way, God guaranteed each word of the scriptures.

FK: "And God's foreknowledge is of no help here, because you would still have to believe in an amazing freak of luck that no author strayed, seeing as how "hands-off" you believe God is."

How is that? Did I say that man wrote the Bible without any help from God? Did He not inspire it?

You never said either of those things, but this is where my above argument comes in. I have been buried in statements that God will not interfere with man's free will. However, if you are now saying that God proactively placed whatever events in the lives of the writers to cause them to write what they wrote, then that is an override of what their will is/was, and I agree. That is putting the fix in.

God did not use man as some sort of puppet, placing man in a trance to move his hand! God wouldn't need man at all if that is the way God planned to give the Scriptures. Why would He need man at ALL to write the Scriptures?

God didn't "need" man to write the scriptures. :) (He seemed to do OK with the Ten Commandments.) But, if you'll agree that God set up everything such as to leave nothing to chance, then I'm fine with that.

Whoopie, we agree on something...

My sarcasm meter is pegging right now... :)

Faith is not only something given by God to men, it is a RESPONSE to God's grace. Faith ALSO depends on man. (emphasis added)

This is for what I have labored so hard and for so long to hear. :) I think this takes away from God's sovereignty, and this difference is one of the main points (tangentially, if not explicitly) of the original article of this thread. You can't really tell me then, that "everything" comes from God. It cannot, if your sense of free will really is true.

[On whether it makes sense for there to be "perseverance scriptures" to the elect, if the elect are already guaranteed to comply:] FK: "It's a perfect revelation of God's will, and therefore a wonderful teaching tool to seekers. ..........

Sorry, it is wishful thinking, not in compliance with Scriptures. God's promises are for those who persevere - from our point of view.

(And only the elect persevere, so God's promises are only for the elect, you are saying ...).

Scriptures used to teach seekers about perseverance are not in compliance with scriptures? Revealing God's will that His elect persevere is not in compliance? What are you talking about? -- Besides, what good are any of God's promises to those who persevere when none of them (those who persevere) can be known until after their dead?

God doesn't say that YOU will persevere. Only His elect. Being regenerate does NOT mean you are of the elect.

Again, what good are God's promises here if they apply to no one in particular? Why do you bother to read them? You seem to know that they don't apply to me because I claim to be of the elect. How or why do they apply to you?

FK: "I don't put the burden on my shoulders to perform to such and such a level. God already says He will take the burden for us."

God says His burden is light and easy. He doesn't say He "takes it away".

Here are a couple of examples:

Is. 46:3-4 : 3 "Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. 4 Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you.

Deut. 1:31 : ... and in the desert. There you saw how the LORD your God carried you, as a father carries his son, all the way you went until you reached this place."

And of course the obvious question to you would be: Do you consider your sins to be a burden? Did God relieve you of that burden by dying on the cross, or does man take care of his own burden by doing deeds and sacraments to redeem his own burden of sin? I know you don't believe that. Is this a misunderstanding?

If you have no problems with Jesus telling parables, why can't the OT have parables?

I don't have any problem with the concept, I will just never assume that something is a parable, (a) if there is no indication that it is, and/or (b) just because I can't scientifically explain every detail of the story to the satisfaction of today's scientists. MY presumption will always be that the story is meant to be taken as factually true, unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary.

FK: "God's "literal" word was intended to be interpreted at times."

God's "literal" word is eternal and not subject to interpretation by man. Thus, the problem with Islam, brother. Christianity can thrive because we CAN realize that God's Word is mediated through man. The Church CAN interpret it - making the Scripture LIVING.

No Islam problem here. Jesus gave a parable one time, and then He turned right around and interpreted it for His disciples right there. Here is an example of God interpreting His own word, even though you do not believe that can ever happen. I think the principle lives on to this day. The Spirit interprets the word of God for us. We just disagree on who the Spirit has on His speed dial.

The Church can make the scripture LIVING? God delegated that one away too, eh? Well, I hope it isn't the Church that is trying to make the Constitution LIVING! :)