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

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

[kosta50]

Needless to say, I really love your "simple Baptist" approach, along with your simple Baptism sense of humor. :)

You remind me of the good and simple folk in Greece and Serbia, who believe from the heart. If you get a chance read Tolstoy's "Three Little Hermits." It's a short story (it's on Google) and it's very, very poignant. When I was growing up, the grownups used to tell me "this is true Orthodoxy." It shows the difference between true faith and institutionalized faith in an exaggerated manner.

But the core of our disagreement lies in your concept of baptism: it holds God's grace hostage to human intellectual "understanding" of faith. In essence you are saying that God cannot bestow His grace on those who cannot understand. That places an awful lot of brain-damaged humans on the train to perdition. God is Mercy and mercy does not require conceptualization of the one who receives it. He spares us.

Baptism is a petition for adoption. God adopts us by His mercy and adoption does not require consent of the adopted child. He does it out of mercy and love for all who ask. It is not our doing, nor something we earn, nor something we "qualify" for at a certain age, not something we understand.

[kosta50]

Hey Stripes, thanks. Please consider yourself pinged on all my posts again. I already posted some before I read yours.

Again, welcome back.

[kosta50]

Коста

[George W. Bush]

But the core of our disagreement lies in your concept of baptism: it holds God's grace hostage to human intellectual "understanding" of faith. In essence you are saying that God cannot bestow His grace on those who cannot understand. That places an awful lot of brain-damaged humans on the train to perdition. God is Mercy and mercy does not require conceptualization of the one who receives it. He spares us.

Do not accuse us of excluding the unfortunate. This is by no means true. My cousin has severe Downs syndrome and I am very confident of her salvation. We are pleased to believe that God has their fate well in hand, just as He does our own. We believe that His judgment is certain and compassionate. When we embrace believers' baptism, we by no means exclude infants or the disabled from the possibility of God's grace. However, we do follow that example in scripture and we offer baptism to the repentant as scripture did. And we allow God the liberty to deal with all persons as He sees fit. That's awfully generous of us, no?

I would suggest the apostles and the early church did not and modern Baptists do not hold such doubts about God's mercies as what you baby-splashers do.

If you truly believe that having the clergy splash a baby makes the difference between heaven and hell, then it would seem to me that it is the Orthodox (and the Presbys etc.) who hold a view of a cruel and capricious God. Not us Baptists.

I'd also point you toward scripture which refers repeatedly to being born again. What use does a baby whose umbilical is still attached have for being born again? He's barely dry from his first birth. It's makes nonsense of scripture, turning it into a fable. And for what? Because some spiritually immature parents might grieve excessively if their children should die prematurely? It's not worth it. And it's not scriptural. And it harms the churches.

[kosta50]

Do not accuse us of excluding the unfortunate

Well, they can't repent, which seems to be your formula for receiving God's grace. Those who cannot repent or have nothing to repent for can receive God's grace without repentance.

Being baptized is not something you "qualify" for when you are "old enough." Get real.

As for "splashing," your ignorance is pathetic. We don't splash. The Orthodox submerge three times. The Geek word to "baptize" means to submerge. We will pour water over the head if a baptismal pool is not available. But either way, water is necessary, and biblical.

As for what we believe will happen to the unbaptized babies, your ignorance is again glaringly obvious. The Orthodox firmly believe that God's mercy prevails over any judgment and trust that whatever God does is always merciful and just regardless which one of us it concerns.

Instead of learning something about Orthodoxy, you go on your preconceived notions and hearsay. I am not sure what irks you so much about Orthodoxy, but you need to look into your heart and find out. Perhaps truth hurts?

[George W. Bush]

Again, baptism without knowledge of why one is baptized has no merit. Baptism for remission of sins without the knowledge of the need for remission of sins makes no sense. Proxy baptism is no baptism at all; it is wishful thinking.

As for "splashing," your ignorance is pathetic. We don't splash.

Yes, I know. Thrice dipped.

[kosta50]

The New Testament is full of different definitions of baptism. I guess there is enough for everyone to pick a "favorite."

[Forest Keeper]

Baptism, in Orthodoxy, is a petition for adoption of one's soul into Christ by the Holy Spirit. We concentrate on adoption, and trust that the adopting Parent will protect. That's all. We do not go into details of God's mind, or plans.

OK, I was just wondering about the mechanics of baptism's relationship to theosis. I would assume that one cannot reach theosis if one is not "in Christ". Is baptism the only way to accomplish this?

God's grace is not held hostage by our intellect or our acceptance of Him.

Yes, I fully agree. ... So how can you be saying this? :) This idea is along the lines of Irresistible Grace. I'm glad you can buy at least one thing in TULIP. :)

[Forest Keeper]

One should also keep in mind that the major uncials that make up the backbone of the modern critical school (Siniaticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) differ significantly from each other. Frequently the modern critical texts will have to choose *one* of these readings -- a phrase or word you are reading may be backed up, really, by only one manuscript. The rest of Church through the centuries was reading something else!

I'm afraid I don't understand what this means. :)

[kosta50]

OK, I was just wondering about the mechanics of baptism's relationship to theosis. I would assume that one cannot reach theosis if one is not "in Christ". Is baptism the only way to accomplish this?

Baptism is not theosis. Baptism in the name of The Holy Trinity is valid regardless of our intellectual ability.

The reason why adults have to believe in order to be baptized is because they have already sinned and must repent. Those who cannot sin (infants, mentally handicapped) have not sinned, so there is no need to repent. God's grace is valid regardless. For those who cannot sin, they will live the rest of their lives forgiven and restored; for those who have sinned, they must repent and seek God to avoid sin because they will continue to sin.

Baptism will wash away any sins that we already have. Theosis is our participation in God's uncreated energies, living a virtuous life in Christ, cooperating with God's will. Two different things, FK.

So how can you be saying this? :) This idea is along the lines of Irresistible Grace. I'm glad you can buy at least one thing in TULIP. :)

Grace is not shoved down our throat against our will. God's grace is there whether we want it or not, whether we understand it or not, whether we know it or not.

[kosta50]

I'm afraid I don't understand what this means

That means, FK, that not all "originals" are the same. The oldest New Testament (Sinaiticus) dates some 300 years after Christ. We are reading copies of copies my friend. Welcome to the wonderful world of the Unknown Bible that nobody told you about. And you thought the Bible just dropped from the sky, signed, sealed and delivered by God?

As you go through this journey on the Forum, you will learn that Tradition is not the only thing Protesants should wonder about but that the Bible you read will depend on which "original" was used. :)

[George W. Bush]

The New Testament is full of different definitions of baptism.

Absolutely. As long as those definitions are of believers in Christ who are immersed after believing and repenting.

I hardly need to hammer the point. You know it well enough for yourself. Personally, I don't mind other churches committing pedobaptism as long as they don't pretend it's scriptural.

[Forest Keeper]

John 3 is improperly rendered "born again" in many Protestant bibles. The Greek uses "anothen", which means "from above" or "top" or "from the first". Everywhere else, this is how it is interpreted. Thus, Jesus is telling Nicodemus one must be born from above, from heaven, from the Spirit.

I'm not sure of the distinction you are drawing. What is the difference between "born again" and "born of the Spirit"? I see them as identical.

Everywhere else, reference to water in the NT is referring to the washing of Baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I totally agree, with the slight modification of replacing "Everywhere else" with "No where in the Bible". Other than that, we're on the same page. :)

Do you disagree on the concept of "by proxy" on everything else, or JUST faith? And if it is YOUR faith at question, then doesn't that throw the whole "I don't cooperate" idea out of whack?

My faith is very dependent on the idea of proxy. Christ died for me, and paid for and remitted my sins, all by proxy. Such is the nature and power of God. However, in spiritual matters, I don't believe that humans have the power to believe on behalf of other humans. I believe that we are to have a relationship with Christ that is very personal. You can't have a personal relationship by proxy.

So is belief strictly from God without any human response? Does a human have anything to do with being a believer so that he is justified? I sense a contradiction here. You say that Baptism can ONLY be given to believers, as if it was from them, then you say that God ALONE gives ALL faith. So why can't a baby be baptized if it is all from God?

Yes, there is a response from the person at the point of belief. However, this response was predestined by God, and is therefore guaranteed. Unlike me, many believers can't point to a specific day when they "became a believer". They will say things like "I have always believed". That is legitimate, but implicit in that statement is the truth there was by definition a time when the person did not believe because he was too young to know what to believe in.

So, I think it is consistent to say that belief does come from God, and the person must respond to that gift (all of the elect do via predestination). Infants cannot participate in the response, and when you say they do by proxy, then that eliminates free will in the Catholic sense. Why can't I just say that all of my free will, in the Catholic sense, is accomplished by God through proxy? Surely if you say humans can believe by proxy you will allow God to have all of my free will by proxy, won't you?

[kosta50]

Personally, I don't mind other churches committing pedobaptism as long as they don't pretend it's scriptural

Not everything Christ taught the Apostles is in writing. Sola scriptura is an innovation of Luther's because he couldn't het a single bishop to join his heresy.

If you believe the Bible came down from heavens signed, sealed and delivered, and deny that human hands and minds had noting to do with it. I have sad news for you: the "original" Bible is an extrapolation.

You go ahead and believe an extrapolation and ignore everything else. Bibliolatry was not what Christ taught. He never once said "Read the Bible" or "Believe only that which is written."

[Kolokotronis]

Very good, Kosta mou!

[kosta50]

HristoV ansth!

Христос воскресе!

EukardieV eucaristieV. Good hearing from you. :)

[kosta50]

HristoV anesth!... sorry :)

[Kolokotronis]

AlhqoV anesth, Adelfe mou !

[Agrarian]

FK, my answer got so long -- amounting to a brief history of Greek manuscript traditions, that I will FReepmail it to you rather than burden the thread with it.

[jo kus]

As is always the case, the Bible takes a back seat to Tradition.

Enough said... It appears nothing I said or will say will convince you otherwise.

Regards