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

So is the Incarnation an "uncreated energy" or one of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity? Or both?

Come to think of it, jo, your question is wrong: you are confusing nature (essence, ousia) with God's uncreated energies. In the case of our Lord Jesus Christ we have a union, without confusion, of two natures: that of Jesus (human) and Christ (divine), each possessing fully its own energies, human and divine.

The very fact that the Church established Orthodox Christology based on two natures of Christ, and two wills or energies, is proof positivie that +Gregory Palamas was not proposing something new, but something that was known to the Church from the beginning.

If you had been there, would you have brought your infant or child to Christ for Him to touch him and bless him? Or would you believe that no blessing would result because your child was not of the age of reason, and thus have kept your child away until he could decide for himself?

Granting your points, you evade the question of substance: there is no indication that the children repented their sins and were baptized. Nor did Jesus indicate that it was necessary for them at their age. That was not the object of His interaction with them. In fact, it seems rather pointedly omitted when compared to the accounts of those thousands who believed and repented and were baptized. And still, no mention of children being baptized after repenting.

If the babysplashers really are correct in their practice, the Gospels should have looked much different and the apostles and disciples of Jesus should have concentrated on preaching to and baptizing babies. And yet, they didn't.

Like I said earlier, when those babies come crawling out of the cribs confessing Christ and repenting their sins, we Baptists will baptize them. Until then, we will focus, as did Christ and the apostles, on those who understand right and wrong, who can conceive of a heavenly Father, a Savior to redeem their sins. The rest of you can splash away if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy but scripture gives no support for your practices.

Sure, if we can choose to sin, it follows that we can choose not to sin. Therefore, between two saved people, the one who chooses to sin "less" might very well have a greater reward in heaven.

An interesting admission... I would agree with everything you wrote above.

Man's justice says it is perfectly fine for a woman to murder her baby

That's not man's justice, that's just the stupid Supreme Court and 7 people making that decision. The majority of people do not agree with that decision of Roe vs. Wade. I agree with what you are saying, BUT, we are still talking oranges and apples here. God exceeds our idea of justice, correct? Thus, the parable of the late day laborers who receive the same wages. Which man would give these men the same wages as the ones who showed up at daybreak? That is what God's justice is...it EXCEEDS ours.

I don't have anything new, just the same boatload of assurance verses that Catholicism either rejects or interprets beyond all recognition.

And what about the "boatload of verses of those who fall away?

What is this about angels selecting who is the wheat?

They are the ones gathering the wheat, are they not?

I do believe that God's Church comes from God. However, I saw nothing in 1 John 1:1-4 that implied that Popes can make infallible declarations from God, or that a priest today can forgive sins.

Been there, done that... Heck, you still think that faith alone saves, even though the Bible says it doesn't. So what sort of evidence would I need to convince you of the above???!!!

Regards

Come to think of it, jo, your question is wrong: you are confusing nature (essence, ousia) with God's uncreated energies. In the case of our Lord Jesus Christ we have a union, without confusion, of two natures: that of Jesus (human) and Christ (divine), each possessing fully its own energies, human and divine.

As far as I can tell so far, an energy is the action of a being, correct? According to this Orthodox concept (which I admit know very little about, I am still struggling to understand it - forgive me, Westerners are slow!) Now, the Orthodox say that man cannot contact the Essence (nature) of God Himself, much like Platoism said, thus, necessitating the Logos. And thus, we have the Incarnate Logos, the Mediator between God and man. But yet, the Bible tells us that Jesus Himself comes into our hearts, along with the Spirit. Is the Essence present among us, or only a Divine Energy? Is this Energy God Himself? I am thoroughly confused on the distinction between Energy and Essence by the three of you so far!

I am sorry, forgive me, I was not raised on this point of view on God, so I am having a hard time understanding the distinction that the Orthodox make between God's Essence and God's Uncreated Energy. In the West, we see God's Energy as Created, and call it Sanctifying Grace. Both God and His Grace comes to men. How does this all work in the East.

I am just curious and trying to learn your point of view better.

The very fact that the Church established Orthodox Christology based on two natures of Christ, and two wills or energies

Is the uncreated energy the Divine Will?

Regards

Do you suppose that the Apostles wrote their works in a vacuum? Do you not suppose that various faithful would ask St. Paul: "Could you explain what you meant when you wrote _______?"

I believe that God wrote His work through the Apostles, so there was no vacuum. Of course there was preaching and teaching all along from the Apostles. It is perfectly reasonable for an Apostle to interpret his own writings. One problem is that those interpretations can then be reinterpreted and reinterpreted ad infinitum all the way up until today. I just don't necessarily believe in those reinterpretations based on just the say so of the reinterpreter.

Surely you don't think that St. Paul would respond, "Well, my friend, it's Scripture, so your interpretation of it is as good as mine... just read it and figure it out by referring to other Scriptures, with the Holy Spirit to guide you."??

I see it as interesting that the Church is perfectly happy with Apostles interpreting what they wrote in scripture, but on the thought that God Himself might interpret His own inspired word through other scripture, this idea is wholly unacceptable. Jesus interpreted His own words within scripture in a parable. However, "God" is barred from doing the same thing by the Church.

This is why I, like a stuck record, keep asking Protestants to show me evidence from the early centuries of the Church that there was serious controversy about the things that Protestantism says the Church invented or perverted.

What do you require for controversy? Several of the early Fathers wrote things that were rejected by the majority of the Church, some of which would be accepted by today's Protestants. Since they were summarily dismissed at the time, the claim is "no controversy". Sometimes it seems that the standard is that if the Reformation was legitimate it would have happened right away. I don't agree with this.

The Church DOES indoctrinate. To my knowledge, dissenting views were not welcomed or encouraged, even to the point of not allowing people to read the Bible because of the threat it posed to the interpretation of the Church. It doesn't make sense to me that any hierarchy that is right should be so afraid of its own members reading their own defining written work. It doesn't appear to me that the early years were particularly an era of "free thinking". Conformism was and is the rule of the day, and why not? It was/is an efficient system. If there is no disagreement, there are no problems.

I think it took all that time before the pressure cooker blew. I don't believe the Reformation just "happened" overnight. It was a gradual process that reached a zenith when it did.

If these things [mainly extra-scriptural Traditional practices] were all perversions, surely the teaching of the Apostles would have had enough staying power to last at least a couple of centuries, and the "true followers of the Apostles" would have raised a holy ruckus over these things. Yet, all we hear is historical static.

That is certainly possible. I'm not sure exactly when or how these types of practices got started. And I don't know if anything could have really been done about it at the time or not. I know that the Jews executed blasphemers, and the Apostolic Church has also done the same, but I'm not sure what the practice was in the early years. (I know that Protestants have also done some unfortunate things, so I didn't mean to make it sound one way. I'm just not sure if the early Church handled such dissension the same way the Jews did.)

And that reminds me, at the time of Jesus, it appears that the then version of "God's Church" was fairly corrupt. Jesus came and righted the ship, but it does show that just being in charge does not make a hierarchy correct. All humans are still fallible.

Some say that this is because the Church suppressed it -- but then we would have the Church's record of *its* side of the story, telling about these heretic proto-Baptists and the crazy things they believed! :-)

Unless the penalty was as above. Ouch! :) Even the threat of excommunication, I would imagine, would be plenty enough to quash much dissent. I don't think it's "unfair" for the Church to want to rid itself of dissenters for the legitimate purpose of unity. But if one had been born and raised into an Apostolic faith, then I can imagine it being pretty tough to work up the moxie to publicly dissent.

The point is that the Temple had given the young Mary to Joseph so as to protect her virginity. (by the way, Joseph was NOT rich, if you read the Protoevangelium, Mary's FATHER was "exceedingly rich" in the very first sentence).

I fully agree that Joseph was not rich. That is shown by the sacrifice of the doves after Jesus is born. And the Protoevangelium does indeed say that Mary's family was wealthy. I was alluding to the arguments of some others here that one reason for the marriage was so that Joseph could take care of Mary financially. If anything, the opposite would have been true. BTW, if Joseph was so old, (too old to have sex, apparently ) what was Mary supposed to do to protect her virginity after he died? It doesn't seem like much of a plan to me if he already had one foot in the grave.

What verse is suppressed as a result of saying Mary was ever-virgin? The explanation given are perfectly acceptable, ancient, and do not damage the Scriptures.

The same ones we are talking about in Matt. 13. Those verses are destroyed in their meaning in order to support the Protoevangelium, a work judged unworthy of inclusion in the Bible. The Protoevangelium and the text of the scripture CANNOT both be true, therefore one side must be suppressed. As is always the case, the Bible takes a back seat to Tradition. Not only that, this suppression also throws into potential doubt the authorship of up to two books in the NT, James and Jude. So this is no small matter to protect an extra-scriptural work.

Without the CHURCH'S interpretation, a final, decisive and dogmatic declaration, we would STILL be arguing over precisely the relationship between God the Father and the Son - and WHO is the Holy Spirit.

That could very well be true. At least it goes to show that I do not think all extra-scriptural Tradition is automatically wrong. :)

If you would like, I can advance the Arius point of view, strictly from the Bible.

If it wouldn't be any trouble, I would be curious to hear it.

The Church was given power to bind and loosen - which includes interpreting Scriptures, exactly what Jewish authorities did, as well. Are you upset that God didn't put you in charge?!

And look at what a stellar job the Jewish authorities did at it! :) I'm not upset that I'm not in charge. I should give thanks to God every day that I am not. :) I only get upset when there's any suggestion that God is not in charge.

Naturally, those who cannot live by their own standards, such as Sola Scriptura - by inventing Sola Fide as well as Sola Scriptura - do not have an agenda!!!

In terms of agreeing with the text of the Bible, I would put Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura up against extra-scriptural Tradition any day of the week. That would be an interesting test, say, to find 100 very bright people who have absolutely zero knowledge of Christianity in any form. Then, have each one of them read the whole Bible. Next, on certain preselected issues, present the two views of Catholicism and of the Reformed Protestants. Finally, ask them to vote on each issue as to which view more closely matches what they read in scripture. I could be wrong, but I don't think it would even be close.

Sanctification is real, especially THROUGH the sacraments of the Church.

I thought for sure you believed that, it just didn't sound like it from your prior post. I even "think" you believe that sanctification is really a part of justification, that sanctification has to do with final salvation.

I have a difficult time wondering why God established a Church that would totally destroy everything Christ taught in less than 100 years - that is the argument of Protestantism that exceeds all other fantasies...

Oh, it's not that bad, we just talked about the Trinity, right? :) My belief IS that the Church strayed, but it's not a fantasy, it's a mystery. Why would God create men just so they could continually turn their back against Him after He only loves them and bestows blessings? I don't know. The Bible is absolutely packed with examples of men being put into power, only for bad things to result. This does not mean "THEREFORE" the Catholic Church is wrong, it just means I don't think they are any more insulated against error than anyone else. (Of course this view is predicated on my belief that God's Church and the RCC are not one and the same.)

I would further clarify that by noting that Scriptures have different definitions of "works". James says they ARE necessary - because he is referring to works of love, good deeds done with pure motive (of course, a gift from God). Paul talks about "works" where God now owes man a reward for obey the Law. Paul says nothing man can do makes God a debtor, thus, to Paul, this form of "work of the law" cannot save.

That sounds like a pretty good distinction between the approaches of James and Paul. That one has troubled me before. :)

Thus, I believe Protestants err by forcing ALL actions of man into Paul's definition of works, when the Scriptures clearly tell us that "faith [without works] cannot save".

Well, why wouldn't our idea of Perseverance of the Saints coupled with Eph. 2:8-9 solve for both views above? I consider the "perseverance" part as a future included event to the original grace of salvation. Therefore, the two Solas survive.

Imagine Albert Pujols, of the 2006 World Champion St. Louis Cardinals, was at the plate and blasted a 400-footer into left center. :) He uncharacteristically stops to watch it before he starts running. The ball clears the fence. Has he hit a home run? I would say "YES", even though technically, in order to be an official home run, he still must "choose" to run all the bases and touch home plate. The running of the bases is a future included event of something that is REALLY already done. I think Catholics would differ and say "NO", it is not a done deal, because anything could happen to Pujols on his way around the bases, or he might just choose to run into the stands for whatever reason and forfeit his home run. I would say that my belief in being one of the elect is similar to my confidence that Albert is going to dutifully trot around those bases. How do you see it?

More often, much more, though, judgment of Christians is seen as either heaven or hell.

I really don't know about "more" or "less", but it is absolutely undeniable that "judgment" as used in the Bible as referring to either heaven or hell is all over scripture.

To me, scripture has only one object, one star: Jesus Christ. There are no co-stars, no co-redemptrixes. All of God's glory is focused upon Christ in the person of Jesus. Everyone else is a bit-player in comparison.

And a fellow Baptist AMEN to you! :) Everyone else IS a bit-player, a sinner, and is completely and utterly dependent on Christ, the star and the light, for salvation.

No Baptist ever apologizes for this view of the person of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

Very interesting -- thanks very much for the explanation about the limbus patrum.

I guess my partial knowledge puts me in a sort of limbo between Los Angelinians and the true cognoscenti! :-)

Actually, I don't think I was evading anything, but I did notice that you evaded (perhaps unintentionally) my question of whether you would have brought your little child to Christ to be blessed.

Far from evading anything, I was simply demonstrating an aspect of the Gospels where children were receiving grace from Christ that they didn't understand. Which, from an Orthodox point of view, is the real question about whether children should receive baptism, chrismation, and Holy Communion.

You are correct that Scripture doesn't explicitly say that infants were baptized at that time -- it is silent, but you already know the references that are used to show that it may be implied. I won't repeat them.

The Church was very different in the early years, in that the focus was on the conversion of adults. We believe that with the onset of families coming into the Church, all were baptized in many cases, but I can't prove that.

I would also point out that the only practice that is criticized in the patristic writings (although sometimes it is also recommended) is the practice of waiting a long time for baptism -- even at one's deathbed (such as the Emperor St. Constantine) out of concern that this was one's only shot at a full forgiveness of sins.

It has been said that part of St. Constantine's motivation not to formally join the Church that he promoted so vigorously and studied arduously, was that he felt that as emperor, he had to do so many things that were dangerous to the soul: execute and imprison people, kill people by waging war, etc...

My point is that while there was controversy about how long one waited, there is no record of any controversy about the baptism of infants. Again, this is a passive witness, not an active one, even if you were inclined to look at history as a useful tool in understanding the Apostolic practice.

Baptists are being consistent in their practice of adult baptism only if the criterion is whether it is explicitly spelled out in Scripture.

I would ask, though, that you take every other aspect of Baptist practice and mentally apply the same criterion. Imagine things about how you worship and live the Christian life, that if you were to change them, people would raise a ruckus -- and then try to find whether they are explicitly spelled out in the NT in the life of the Church.

Maybe you have a practice of people coming forward and kneeling at the front of the church -- is that in the Bible? Is having a specific church building at all in the Bible? Are having crosses on steeples in the Bible? Are having rows of pews in the Bible? Is having a pulpit in the Bible?

Is there a single instance of someone leading another person in a "sinner's prayer" in the Bible? By your criteria, if it isn't explicitly spelled out in the Bible, it shouldn't be done. Given the centrality in most fundamentalist practices of leading someone in the sinner's prayer -- it is the defining moment of when someone was saved -- wouldn't the NT look much different, and have some explicit examples of this being done? I think you get my drift. We all have traditions, and practices not explicitly spelled out in the Scriptures -- we just don't all recognize them as such.

"I believe that God wrote His work through the Apostles, so there was no vacuum. Of course there was preaching and teaching all along from the Apostles. It is perfectly reasonable for an Apostle to interpret his own writings."

And....? Wouldn't their interpretations that they did through their extensive preaching throughout the known world have held the day? Wouldn't these understandings of Scripture have been carefully passed on to every new Christian and every new generation?

"...but on the thought that God Himself might interpret His own inspired word through other scripture, this idea is wholly unacceptable."

Not true. The model that we have before us has always been one of using Scripture to understand Scripture. It is in the prophets regarding the Pentateuch, it is in the NT regarding the OT, and it is in the Fathers everywhere -- correlating, comparing, harmonizing, enlightening.

Goodness, after following the content of some of my friendly verbal duels with Kosta regarding OT - NT continuity, you should know that about the patristic approach.

God is not barred from doing anything -- I don't know where you get that idea. The Church passes on what it understands to be the Apostolic teaching -- what else should it have done?

"What do you require for controversy? Several of the early Fathers wrote things that were rejected by the majority of the Church, some of which would be accepted by today's Protestants."

All along, we do not accept the writings or teachings of any one man -- I would hope you would agree with that approach. What I am looking for is evidence that there was an active movement combating the things about Orthodoxy that modern Protestantism rejects. Could you choose one of the Fathers you mention, looking at his writings as a whole, and say that his faith was fundamentally the same as yours -- i.e. could you say, "this guy is one of ours?"

If the faith of the Apostles had any staying power, and if their faith was the same as that of Protestantism, I think we would find evidence for it in the early centuries. The Mormon explanation for this phenomenon is that immediately after the Apostles, God removed grace from the earth until there was a more fitting time for it. Protestantism has never made an historical case for the existence of their distinctives in the early centuries.

"The Church DOES indoctrinate. To my knowledge, dissenting views were not welcomed or encouraged..."

In other words, Christianity was hijacked extremely early (maybe in the first generation after the Apostles) by men of false views and practices.

"even to the point of not allowing people to read the Bible because of the threat it posed to the interpretation of the Church."

Maybe true of medieval Catholicism, but not true at any time in the undivided Church or in the Orthodox Church. St. John Chrysostom -- Patriarch of Constantinople and a model bishop to us Orthodox, writing in the 4th century at a time of turmoil and controversy with Arians said these things that I jotted down in my journal (forgive the excessive abbreviation -- I only wrote down the key phrases):

"Hearken ye, as many as are [living in the world], and have the charge of wife and children, how to you too he {St. Paul, that is -- St. John is here preaching on Colossians} commits especially the reading of the Scripures...

...Procure books that will be medicines for the soul. If ye will not any other, yet get you at least the New Testament... for your constant teachers.

This is the cause of all evils, the not knowing the Scriptures."

Do you approve? Does that sound like the banning of Scripture? I would also point out that in those days, having writings in one's home involved great expense, since books had to be copied by hand.

Keep also in mind that these were formative years -- there were still controversies and heresies. The practices of the day were furthermore certainly by the 4th century ones that you would believe to be as seriously wrong as you believe us Orthodox to be today. There is no evidence that anyone tried to suppress the reading of Scripture. On the contrary, we have the most prominent preacher of the day urging his faithful to read the Scriptures to their families in their own homes. Yet no Reformation happened.

"And that reminds me, at the time of Jesus, it appears that the then version of "God's Church" was fairly corrupt."

That is true. It it the history of the Church, from the time it was established outside the gates of the Garden of Eden, that there have been fallings away, remnants, and calls to repentance and a return to the true faith. It is all through the OT. We Orthodox can certainly point to our own history and show many, many times of people's hearts growing cold, followed by revivals and flowering of belief and piety. This is a fact of human existence.

At the time of Christ, the officials in charge of the Hebrew religion were certainly corrupt.

But implicit in that is my original question: doesn't it seem funny that over the period of 1500 years, that there is no record of visible and organized churches that held Protestant beliefs until the Reformation itself? Basically, by Protestant standards, the official Jewish religion was corrupt, Christ came and reformed it (so to speak),then *that* Christian church became corrupt and full of false beliefs and practices within a century or two, it remained corrupt and full of false beliefs and practices for 15 centuries, then the Reformation happened, and true Protestant Christianity has been active and visible and growing ever since.

What went wrong? Why were the Refomers able to start a Christian movement that lasted and expanded to cover the globe, while Christ and the Apostles couldn't?

"Is this Energy God Himself?"

As Kosta pointed out on a similar matter, I would submit that you are asking the wrong question.

As I pointed out above, it seems to me that you are trying to "get behind" the energies and nature of God to find the "real God" -- and then ask how to find union with that essence.

What I have tried to express (probably poorly) is that you cannot separate God's energies, will, nature, persons, and essence -- and say that this part is really God, and that part isn't.

You cannot separate the energies of God from his essence, and then say that participation in them is not a full participation in the life of God. Nor can you say that because participation in the divine energies is a "partaking of the divine nature" that therefore the energies must be God Himself.

What Kosta points out is very apt -- even in Christ, there is not a mingling or fusion of divine and human natures or energies (and I would add wills, as per the 6th Council). The 6th Council said that Christ's human will was distinct from his divine will, but that his human will was in perfect conformity with the divine will. They were shown to be distinct in the garden of Gethsemane, but they were in perfect conformity.

I'm sure that something has been written on the human and divine energies in the person of Christ, but I would imagine that it would be similar to that. Furthermore, Christ's human nature participated in the divine energies to the fullest extent that is possible -- in a sense, it is the limit to which we humans can approach, but presumably never reach.

Actually, I don't think I was evading anything, but I did notice that you evaded (perhaps unintentionally) my question of whether you would have brought your little child to Christ to be blessed.

Yes. I thought you were posing a rhetorical question.

Far from evading anything, I was simply demonstrating an aspect of the Gospels where children were receiving grace from Christ that they didn't understand.

Receiving a blessing is not the same as receiving grace. I like to think that those children later were saved, that they became stalwarts of the early church. But we have no indication of this.

The Church was very different in the early years, in that the focus was on the conversion of adults. We believe that with the onset of families coming into the Church, all were baptized in many cases, but I can't prove that.

Honest enough.

I would also point out that the only practice that is criticized in the patristic writings (although sometimes it is also recommended) is the practice of waiting a long time for baptism -- even at one's deathbed (such as the Emperor St. Constantine) out of concern that this was one's only shot at a full forgiveness of sins.

But it was long after the time of Christ and the apostles that we see deathbed baptisms and infant baptisms. From Wikipedia which seems pretty neutral in its overview:

Scholars from the traditions that practice infant baptism contend that indirect evidence for baptizing children exists within the New Testament. They cite occasions from the Book of Acts when whole households were baptized, in the words "The promise is for you and for your children." Advocates of believers's baptism counter that such passages do not necessarily include infants and young children.
The earliest extra-biblical reference to baptism occurs in the Didache (c. 100 A.D.), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 130 A.D.), and the Shepherd of Hermas (c. 150 A.D.). Some scholars argue that all of these works describe the practices surrounding baptism in ways that imply it is adults that are baptized. The Didache, for example, directs that candidates for baptism be instructed and fast for two days:

"Concerning baptism, baptize thus: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. ... Before a baptism, let him who baptizes and him who is baptized fast, and any others who may be able to do so. And command him who is baptized to fast one or two days beforehand"^[1]

The proponents of infant baptism counter that these passages illustrated adult baptism but do not exclude infant baptism. They also point to discussions of infant salvation in the first three centuries and the observations of later writers that infant baptism was the tradition of the church strongly suggests that the practice was established in the earliest days of church history.
The earliest uncontested historical record of infant baptism is recorded in the works of Origen (185-254 A.D.):

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin... In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous."^[2]

From the 3rd century until the 16th century, infant baptism was practised by almost all Christian churches. In the 16th century the Anabaptists challenged the biblical warrant for this practice, starting the debate between pedobaptism and credobaptism which continues to be a source of disagreement between Christians.

If we observe the Didache, it seems unlikely that infants were instructed in scripture and doctrine or that they fasted for two days prior to their splashings by clergy. Given how widespread the Didache was among Christians at that time, it is most peculiar that it makes no mention or provision for baby-splashing.

My point is that while there was controversy about how long one waited, there is no record of any controversy about the baptism of infants. Again, this is a passive witness, not an active one, even if you were inclined to look at history as a useful tool in understanding the Apostolic practice.

There are a great many practices of the early church as well as more modern churches which would not be forbidden by this standard. Yet, you Orthodox would no more approve them than would a Baptist. This isn't really a serious argument, IMO.

Baptists are being consistent in their practice of adult baptism only if the criterion is whether it is explicitly spelled out in Scripture. I would ask, though, that you take every other aspect of Baptist practice and mentally apply the same criterion. Imagine things about how you worship and live the Christian life, that if you were to change them, people would raise a ruckus -- and then try to find whether they are explicitly spelled out in the NT in the life of the Church.

Baptists do a pretty good job at being literal and observing New Testament practice. When we exceed that simple faith, we do generally note it and observe that it is not biblical. For instance, many local Baptists are installing e-Sword software to aid in bible study. It's not forbidden nor advocated in scripture. Yet, would a novelty in scripture study that aids the ordinary Christian in study be contrary to the Word? No. And it would uphold scripture's injunction to study the Word and use it as the litmus of our worship practice and spiritual life.

Maybe you have a practice of people coming forward and kneeling at the front of the church -- is that in the Bible? Is having a specific church building at all in the Bible? Are having crosses on steeples in the Bible? Are having rows of pews in the Bible? Is having a pulpit in the Bible?

Is there a single instance of someone leading another person in a "sinner's prayer" in the Bible? By your criteria, if it isn't explicitly spelled out in the Bible, it shouldn't be done. Given the centrality in most fundamentalist practices of leading someone in the sinner's prayer -- it is the defining moment of when someone was saved -- wouldn't the NT look much different, and have some explicit examples of this being done?

Coming forward is considered a bit suspect in some Baptist churches. Many Baptist churches are house churches. Many Baptist churches have no steeple or cross. As for leading someone in the sinner's prayer (Romans Road to Salvation), it seems a sound practice in that it is an orthodox confession of sin and proper doctrine, one which I doubt the Orthodox would find controversial in the slightest. And the use of scripture to confess one's sin and need of a Savior is by no means controversial. Given that Baptists are so closely wed to scripture (being otherwise deliberately impoverished), to take a new convert directly for scripture for doctrine and the form of prayer is hardly unscriptural. Baptists are very much wed to scripture and this is a fitting start in a Baptist's Christian life.

There is a difference between following scripture and recognizing that many practices were not recorded in scripture because they had not yet been written at the time of the events depicted in scripture. Yet, Baptists adhere to a broad method of preaching the Word, just as exampled in scripture by the apostles and early Christians. If you think about it, I think you'll see why Baptists are unlikely to overthrow the preaching of and use of Romans Road To Salvation simply because Paul hadn't yet written it at the time the events of the Gospels occurred or, later, were recorded.

Welcome back, stripes1776. Good to have you back.

Thank you, it is good to be back. I have a few days of vacation and hope to have time to spend on FreeRepublic.

So is the Incarnation an "uncreated energy" or one of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity? Or both?

That is an extremely important question. In my opinion it is not possible to separate Christology from the Palamite question of uncreated energies. I would maintain that Palamism depends on the previous centuries' discussions of Christology as part of its fullest expression.

Since kosta has also responded to your question, I will continue this discussion on that thread as soon as I have some time to think through some of the main issues.

Actually, Didache is dated anywhere from 60 to 100 AD, and there are some other "inconsitencies" in the way the authors of that work worshiped as compared to "standard" praxis. One that comes to mind is the fact that Didache does not mention Real Presence, and also reverses the order of Eucharitic reception, more in line with the Judaic practice: wine first, then bread.

Didache is by no means a Church-wide dogma. It probably reflected the practices of some Jewish Christians at the time when the Apostles still walked the earth and were busy writing Gospels.

Can we assume that simply because Didache does not mention anything about infant baptisms that other communities didn't practice baptisms of entire families, as there is evidence to that effect?

Didache may be an insight but by no means a "Bible." Children were not really much of a subject in those days unless they were children of kings, or were the targets of someone's slaughter, and even then the records if often lacking. In other words, chlidren were not given the important role of decision making, but simply followed what their parents did.

You will also notice in the quote that it says "let him who baptizes and him who is baptized fast, and any others who may be able to do so" but it doesn't say that those who may not be able to do so cannot be baptized! Obviously, children were not expected to fast, as they are not expected now.

Can we assume that simply because Didache does not mention anything about infant baptisms that other communities didn't practice baptisms of entire families, as there is evidence to that effect?

And merely because Paul mentioned the use of tongues and baptisms for the dead will also not lead Baptists in those directions.

Given other ancient writings about years of preparation for baptism and to be inducted into a body of believers, we Baptists are content on the historical record.

You will also notice in the quote that it says "let him who baptizes and him who is baptized fast, and any others who may be able to do so" but it doesn't say that those who may not be able to do so cannot be baptized! Obviously, children were not expected to fast, as they are not expected now.

Obviously, these 'others' are those who will witness the baptism or play a part in it. The first portion describes those who will baptize and those who will be baptized. The 'any others' obviously does not include them. Attempting to shove babies into 'any others' seems pretty weak to the plain text.

I find you Orthodox are much like the Presbys in this matter. When we discuss baptism, all of a sudden y'all start talking like a pack of slick East Coast lawyers. In terms of theology, that's rarely a good sign.

Is the Essence present among us, or only a Divine Energy? Is this Energy God Himself? I am thoroughly confused on the distinction between Energy and Essence by the three of you so far! I am sorry, forgive me, I was not raised on this point of view on God

Jo, there is no need to apologize. I believe that this is much simpler than you think. God created us in His image and likeness, in other words in resemblance of Him. We can potentially be like Him, but we can never be Him.

I am sure you know that. I am also sure that you know that God is a Spirit, ineffable, invisible, uncircumscribed, transcendental, and that we are nothing like that. We can become good (by cleaving to God), but God is Goodness. We may be merciful, but He is Mercy. We may be just, but His is Justice. God is the essence of everything we consider virtuous in us, because He is Virtue.

Is God present in us? He is present in everything; every thing that exists is a manifestation of God, for we exist because of Him and without Him we have no existence on our own.

So, if we can't see Him, how do we know who He is, or whether He is? The answer is through His energies. Through them, He makes Himself "detectable" by us; through them He communicates with us, through revelations and visions. Through His energies, we are moved to virtue. Through His energies we become like Him (theosis), but we never, ever, become Him.

For if we are to become Him, he would cease to be uncreated eternal God and we would cease to be created likeness of Him. Each one of us would become another Hypostasis, distinct, yet equally divine, sharing the same Essence (ousia) with the other Hypostases of which there would be as many as there are saved souls. That wold be pantheism. That wold be Hollywood!

St Basil the Great (4th century) writes: "We know our God from His energies, but we do not claim that we can draw near His essence." (Basil, Letter 234) This shows clearly that St. Gregory Palamas did not "invent" something new in Orthodox theology ten centuries (1,000 years!) later, but simply re-affirmed the patristic faith the East never altered.