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

He is is ultimately remembered as one of the few people (perhaps the only person) ever to be posthumously anathematized by an Ecumenical Council

Not really. Pope Honorius is another.

So, then the 1854 Catholic holding of infallible doctrine concerning Mary is something you do not agree with?

There is no basis for it in the Orthodox phronema (mindset), because our understanding of the original sin is not Augustinian; never was, which is at the foundation of that dogma. We do agree with our Latin brothers that she was immaculate but was not conceived that way.

...why do these differences appear to be "no big deal"? I know you're not miles apart, but I just would have guessed that beliefs on Mary would be pretty important

It is important and it used to be a subject of heated debates among us and Catholics. However, we have come to understand that such theological issues can be resolved only in a a general or ecumenical council that is yet to take place after more than 1,200 years.

We recognize and know our differences in teaching and we also recognize that it is no different than, say, some fathers teaching filioque or original sin (i.e. +Augustine) and parts of the Church not being in agreement.

Until such a Council meets, we have agreed and the Pope has been instrumental in this, along with a general movement towards Patristic mindset in the Western Church, to concentrate on our common theology (which is 99%) and leave the difficult issues that divide us still to a future Council which, by the way, cannot take place until the role and scope of papacy is agreed upon (under current discussion between the two particular Churches).

There has been a slight set-back in this when recently the Pope decided to drop his title as the "Patriarch of the West" whereby such a move indicates that he is "outside" or "over" other Patriarchs, not as one of the Patriarchs, among whom he is senior in dignity, but rather as the Patriarch of the Church in title and not in honor.

I have not eard much more on this since then. However, if that is an attempt to place himself above other Patriarchs, the talks are doomed.

Yes, you are correct on your points of contrast. We don't have OT saints liturgically celebrated during the Liturgical year. We do ask for their prayers on occasion, and they are sometimes mentioned during the Eucharistic Prayers. I suppose the West concentrates more on the saints who follow Christ, not precede Him. I don't know why that is, but we do consider the OT prophets as saints, but we don't emphasize them much.

I certainly don't assume that everything I read on FR is correct, even when you are the one writing it! :-)

That's good! Reader beware!

Regards

Are you really going to argue that annulment is not equivalent to divorce? "Bill of Divorce" is bad, but annulment is OK?

An annulment is a finding that declares that a marriage was never properly entered into between the two parties. The Church requires that both parties enter into an indissoluble union that is faithful, free, and open to life. If either party enters into the marriage covenant not fully intending any of the above, or there is an impediment that is later discovered, the marriage never occured. Considering how our culture emphasizes the self to the exclusion of the other, is it surprising that many people enter into a "marriage" with the idea that if one is not "fulfilled", they intend on leaving the union? How can this then be considered a valid marriage if one has such an attitude?

If this is your position, you see no conflict with the spirit of what Jesus was saying? Did Jesus speak of annulment?

Yes, He gave an example of an exception that would invalidate the marriage - if one had married their brother or sister. (incest)

Regards

as I have said before I know the Spirit does not work in the fashion of complete revelation of doctrine to believers on day one. It is an individual process of sanctification

That day will never arrive. The process of sanctification will never bring two Protestants of different persuasions (Armenian and Calvinist, for example) together on doctrine.

In addition, there can be misperception of the part of the receiver. Ultimately, if you say "why should I believe you over a Methodist?", I agree, maybe you cannot know. All I can do is put up my beliefs against what the Bible says, and let the other denominations speak for themselves. :)

OR, you can accept an authority outside of yourself and realize that Christ left an authoritative group of men called "apostles" who passed on their authority to succeeding generations of men. Christianity is a revealed religion, not one based on our own private thoughts and interpretations. God has given to us through other men the Gospel.

Regards

Not sure what "Mary Eucharist" is

Where did you get the idea that the Church's doctrines about the Eucharist developed in the 9-1000's?

+Augustine's speculations on predestination were his own alone.

"It was not thus that that pious and humble teacher thought—I speak of the most blessed Cyprian—when he said "that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own."6 And in order to show this, he appealed to the apostle as a witness, where he said, "For what hast thou that thou hast not received?

--Augustine, A Treatise on Predestination

Cyprian's first Christian writing is "Ad Donatum", a monologue spoken to a friend, sitting under a vine-clad pergola. He tells how, until the grace of God illuminated and strengthened the convert, it had seemed impossible to conquer vice; the decay of Roman society is pictured, the gladiatorial shows, the theatre, the unjust law-courts, the hollowness of political success; the only refuge is the temperate, studious, and prayerful life of the Christian. At the beginning should probably be placed the few words of Donatus to Cyprian which are printed by Hartel as a spurious letter. The style of this pamphlet is affected and reminds us of the bombastic unintelligibilty of Pontius. It is not like Tertullian, brilliant, barbarous, uncouth, but it reflects the preciosity which Apuleius made fashionable in Africa. In his other works Cyprian addresses a Christian audience; his own fervour is allowed full play, his style becomes simpler, though forcible, and sometimes poetical, not to say flowery. Without being classical, it is correct for its date, and the cadences of the sentences are in strict rhythm in all his more careful writings. On the whole his beauty of style has rarely been equalled among the Latin Fathers, and never surpassed except by the matchless energy and wit of St. Jerome.

--NewAdvent on Cyprian

Trying to wiggle out if it now, hey?

Chapter IX

Of Free Will

I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.[1]

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God;[2] but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.[3]

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:[4] so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,[5] and dead in sin,[6] is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.[7]

IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin;[8] and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[9] yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.[10]

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.[11]

--Westminster Confessions

God always makes the first move....Contrary to Scripture, your theology claims that we can not reject God.

He did not stomp on His enemies and razed cities to the ground. No, He taught that we should love our enemies and that we should not resist the evil one.

Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," says the Lord. Rom 12:19

FK: "I don't base any part of my salvation on anything I have done, am doing now, or ever will do. Therefore, "performance" is irrelevant to my idea of salvation."

Therefore sin boldly as Luther said! No amount of sin on this earth will earn you hell as no amount of good works in faith will earn you heaven. How convenient!

NO, NO, NO! :) As I have already explained in other ways, "Perseverance of the Saints" is incompatible with "sinning boldly". With your own eyes, you and JO saw me convert to POTS on this thread. That just made me consistent with my theological brothers and sister. Why do you keep accusing us of advocating sinning boldly? We all deny the way you are using it, and have from the beginning.

Some conform to Christ only if God has elected them and compelled us to do so. And others are damned from birth because God doesn't willed it so.

Change "Some" to "All" and I would say "YES!", and?....... :)

By denying free will, you "sin" only because God wants you to sin, and you take no blame for it.

No, we take full blame for our sin because God does not author sin. You say over and over again that God already knows everything we will ever do. I agree. Why does God create us that way, then? Does God get what He wants, or does He fail in this endeavor?

Three thousand posts and going, and we are square back at the beginning when I said Luther gave everyone permission to sin boldly — so it is true, that's what you all believe. Just for the record.

What is sad to me is for you, along with Jo in his 3148, (where Jo agrees with you and repeats another early stereotype that my side believes sanctification is meaningless) to both revert back to your original stereotypical knee-jerk opinions of others of different faiths after spending all the time you both have on this thread. I can tell you for a FACT that when I go back and read my very early postings on this thread, I won't recognize myself. Thanks and Praise be to God.

You both are as much as admitting that you have learned very little or nothing of our beliefs in 3,000+ posts. I freely admit that I had the most to learn, but if you guys are still harping on the "sin boldly" line, then it doesn't seem like you even want to know what our views are, even out of curiosity.

Why do you keep accusing us of advocating sinning boldly? We all deny the way you are using it, and have from the beginning.

Even Augustine...

For what is plainer than when He says, "I will cause you to do"? [Ezek. 36.27.] Give heed to that passage of Scripture, and you will see that God promises that He will make them to do those things which He commands to be done. He truly is not silent as to the merits but as to the evil deeds, of those to whom He shows that He is returning good for evil, by the very fact that He causeth them thenceforth to have good works, in causing them to do the divine commands.

Ooooo...skimming through Augustine's a Treatise on the Predestination of Man here's a good passage from Augustine which sounds like the arguments we're getting here...

"Therefore," says the Pelagian, "He foreknew who would be holy and immaculate by the choice of free will, and on that account elected them before the foundation of the world in that same foreknowledge of His in which He foreknew that they would be such. Therefore He elected them," says he, "before they existed, predestinating them to be children whom He foreknew to be holy and immaculate. - Augustine

Augustine himself calls this the Pelagius argument yet many try to distance themselve from Pelagius who was condemned by the Church. I suppose Augustine would know.

It would be laughable that this is now the Church official position if it wasn't so sad.

He ordained the fall of Adam

Where is that in the Scripture?

But for the most part, you are correct that annulments in the Catholic church are just divorce called by another name. Were this not true, Catholic annulment rates shouldn't be much different from Orthodox or Protestant annulment rates -- unless Catholics are just far more prone to entering into illicit marriages than are Orthodox or Protestants.

I disagree. Most people have no clue on the responsibility of entering into a marriage as the New Testament understood it. Most just want the fancy bells and whistles that go along with being married in the Church, as if that will keep them together forever. Marriage requires a commitment level that few are truly ready for, especially in this day and age of serving oneself, rather than serving another. Most don't understand the concept of love - given to us ultimately by the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ, for His Bride, the Church. If a man is not ready to give of himself TOTALLY to his wife, he isn't ready for a CATHOLIC marriage. If a woman is not willing to do the same, neither is she. Both people must die to themselves! Through this death to self, the marriage will be unbreakable.

I am sure I will get flamed. But that's the truth of the matter. My wife and I counsel young couples preparing for Catholic marriage. As part of the process, they take a FOCCUS exam, over one hundred questions on numerous subjects to see how they agree with each other. In EVERY case so far, there is one question that is indicative of our society's disdain for the concept of the INDISSOLUBILITY of Marriage: "If your spouse was unfaithful, would you remain in the marriage". One or both ALWAYS says NO! If you would have asked that question 50 years ago, you would have found that people were not quite so quick to bail out of marriage. Don't you find it interesting that people who HARDLY KNEW EACH OTHER 100 years ago who got married AND stayed married for LIFE??? While people who "know" each other for several years, in many cases have LIVED together - get divorced after 5 years? No, brother, I will disagree with you.

The truth of the matter is that society has made divorce too easy. Couples don't truly try to work things out. Why should they? Everyone tells them about no-fault divorce. People are more interested in “getting out while the getting is good...” As a result, it is not surprising that the Church grants more annulments than it once did. There is NOT the full and free commitment to the indissolubility of the covenant as there once was.

Which is why in the Orthodox Church, we have ecclesiastical divorces. They exist for the same reason that they existed in Mosaic law -- the weakness of man and the hardness of our hearts. We face it and acknowledge that this particular marriage failed, and that repentance is called for.

Christ was NOT validating the Mosaic Law of allowing divorce, but the idea that men and women were to become one flesh. Christ sets a new standard. Have you read the Beatitudes? Have you read Christ's discussions on exceeding the Law with Love? That is Christ's intent - not the mere obedience of the Law, but going beyond the Law in Love.

Jo kus would have made a much better point had he simply said that it is clearly not God's will that divorce happen -- and yet it does, amongst everyone, Catholics included. Trying to favorably compare Catholics to non-Catholics in this regard is not particularly helpful in making the overall point that God's will is always good and never evil. It is man's rejection of God's will that creates the evil.

Perhaps. My intent was not to "favorably compare Catholics with non-Catholics". It was to show that people flaunt God's will - and it continues. Men DO have free will to disobey God. For His own reasons, God allows us to sin. It was always God's will that a man and woman become one flesh - and yet, God allowed Moses to issue divorce decrees, even though God knew that He intended something else when He created mankind. We of the NT Covenant have moved beyond that concept of issuing divorce decrees. A marriage entered upon by two people who commit themselves to each other first, rather than themselves, will invariably be successful, with God's grace.

Flame me if you like. But that's God's Word. Sometimes, it is not easy to follow it. We all fall short of God’s Will. But let’s not rationalize it.

Regards

FK-"He ordained the fall of Adam"

annalex-"Where is that in the Scripture?"

Proverbs 20:24. It's the one you said you didn't understand.

Unless I am misunderestimating, Jo would never make a statement like the section I bolded. (Did Blessed Mary accept God on her own? I would say yes she did.) Ever. Am I correct in assuming that you're using the other free choices as equal examples of Mary's choice?

I am not comfortable with "on her own". I am not positive on what Kosta means, I think he will agree that Mary did not choose God without God. However, the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception relies strictly on God's initiative - Mary was saved the loss of sanctifying grace at her birth. We believe that this gift and His continuing graces allowed Mary to remain sinless through out her life (which the Orthodox also believe). I believe our point of disagreement is not over whether Mary sinned or not, but how Mary was able to remain sinless. We believe God gave her a singular grace, along with Mary's own pure will (purified by God), while I believe the Orthodox think that Mary was sinless as a result of her raised theosis/divinization.

Is your position that men are born with enough goodness to freely choose God INDEPENDENTLY of any separate action, after birth, on our hearts by God?

Catholics believe this is dangerously close to Pelagianism. The Council of Orange, later reaffirmed by Trent, specifically stated that men cannot come to God alone - that HE must lead them. Every single person came to God (including Mary) as a result of God's initial calling.

So, then to be absolutely clear, under your belief, God's love for us means that He prizes our freedom of choice for the eighty years or so that we "might" be on earth FAR AND ABOVE OVER where we will spend eternity. That is God's love for us.

The singer "Sting" said it best "If you love someone, set them free". What sort of freedom and eternal happiness is God giving a person by FORCING them to be in heaven? I am detecting a fundamental difference between what you believe happens in heaven and what the Scriptures state. Heaven is not just an earthly paradise (like the Muslims think). Heaven is total spiritual union with God. How is that going to happen if a person has totally separated themselves from God's love on this earth? God is granting what that person desires - an eternal life without Him AND showing His justice to us, as well.

Regards

The Eucharist was formally adopted in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council. We've discussed this before.

Formal declaration of transubstantiation does not mean that the Eucharist was an invention of the 12th century!!! Must we enter that dead-end again? The Church universally and unanimously taught that Christ was present in the flesh during the Eucharist. Transubstantiation was merely a philosophical term that tried to describe the process of how the elements remained the same, but the essence changed.

"It was not thus that that pious and humble teacher thought—I speak of the most blessed Cyprian—when he said "that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own."6 And in order to show this, he appealed to the apostle as a witness, where he said, "For what hast thou that thou hast not received?

That's it? We all believe that! OF COURSE God has given us every good gift! St. Cyprian is not teaching double predestination, but the Catholic belief of God's Providence! Which Catholic is teaching that God actively reprobates men to hell?

I still don't agree that St. Augustine taught double predestination, and the Church didn't teach it either. St. Ambrose CERTAINLY didn't teach it, and I don't see it in your quote of St. Cyprian.

Regards

We feel that if God gives you faith then you have FAITH. You don't have a semi, quasi, maybe it's here-maybe not faith. You have faith. A rather novel if not antiquated concept.

Then which Protestants teach about "saving faith"? Apparently, some do not have "saving faith".

Paul in 1 Cor 13:3 talks about faith as measurable, as well, or at least in varying degrees - when he writes that faith ENOUGH to move mountains. This tells us that there is faith NOT ENOUGH to move mountains. Jesus ALSO tells the Apostles that they have insufficient faith, esp. in Mark's Gospel. People cry to Jesus "Lord, increase my faith".

It seems that faith is not either "ON" full blast, OR "OFF" nothing at all. Faith is a virtue that is present in various degrees in individuals, based on that person's sanctification and openness to God's graces.

Regards

No, we take full blame for our sin because God does not author sin.

So does man have free will or not? I am confused on your stance here. On some posts, you say that God irresistibly causes us to do everything. Now, you say WE are responsible. How can we be responsible for anything if God does it all? If God moves me without me, than what have I done??? How can I be responsible? Am I called to obey the commandments or not?

What is sad to me is for you, along with Jo in his 3148, (where Jo agrees with you and repeats another early stereotype that my side believes sanctification is meaningless) to both revert back to your original stereotypical knee-jerk opinions of others of different faiths after spending all the time you both have on this thread.

I AM trying to understand you, but I am confused. Perhaps it is because we have different definitions of "being saved", and what IS "sanctification" for. Apparently, you believe that sanctification has nothing to do with our eternal destiny, that it only shows proof of our inevitable end. The problem is that you seem to know you are going to heaven, regardless of what happens after your Sinner's Prayer. (despite our agreement that people fall away)

When we say "sin boldly", as Luther said, we refer to your idea that sanctification has nothing to do with salvation. We disagree. If a person does not die to self, a person will not be saved for heaven. Read Romans 8:17, for example. Notice the word "IF". This "IF" occurs during the sanctification process. If we do not take that saving grace received at Baptism, then what good is it? God will not save us without us (St. Augustine). Unless we REPENT and BELIEVE, heaven does not await. But is repenting only a one-time thing? Of course not. We continue to convert throughout our lives. We must die to ourselves and become another Christ - divinization.

Regards

Therefore," says the Pelagian, "He foreknew who would be holy and immaculate by the choice of free will, and on that account elected them before the foundation of the world in that same foreknowledge of His in which He foreknew that they would be such. Therefore He elected them," says he, "before they existed, predestinating them to be children whom He foreknew to be holy and immaculate.

Harley, why didn't you continue with your quote from the Saint? The VERY NEXT SENTENCE you dropped explains the PELAGIAN VIEW in addition to what you wrote...

Certainly He did not make them so; nor did He foresee that He would make them so, but that they would be so

THIS is what Pelagius says...That God didn't make man good - but that man would BE so.

As usual, you cut and paste out of context, not giving us the FULL truth of the matter. It should be clear from the Council of Orange 2 and Trent that the Church does not teach that man can come to God alone, or that man can do anything good without God. "Certainly, God did not make man good" is the Pelagius view...

I hope you didn't drop that sentence purposely. It is not conducive in the search for the truth when you find it necessary to give partial quotations to back up your theology.

Regards

I understand enough to tell you that your translation is by Mickey Mouse. This is King James for Proverbs 20:24:

Man's goings are of the LORD; how can a man then understand his own way?

This is Douay-Rheims

The steps of man are guided by the Lord: but who is the man that can understand his own way?

The Greek for "guided" or as you insist "ordained" is "euthunetai". It never appears as translation for King James's "ordained [by God]"; "epoiezo" seems to be the Greek origin for these. Neither the Hebrew MTzADI-GBR appears anywhere near King James's "ordained".

Where is the sin of Adams ordained, Mr. Sola Scriptura?

Forgot to mention, "eutuno" means exactly what Douay translates:

- guide straight, direct
- make or put straight
- examine the conduct of
- serve

(Liddell, Scott)