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

Heaven is a place?

Sure, for one thing we have this:

John 14:2-4 : 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going."

We also have the heavenly Jerusalem described here:

Heb. 11:16 : Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

We even get a description of this city including dimensions:

Rev. 21:15-17 : 15 The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. 16 The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia in length, and as wide and high as it is long. 17 He measured its wall and it was 144 cubits thick, by man's measurement, which the angel was using.

Now, I don't think that heaven is hovering somewhere over Venus under a cloaking device or something. :) I think it is outside of the created universe, but that nonetheless, it is a real place. Every reference I can think of in the Bible talks about it in terms of it being a place, such as "Kingdom". So I don't know why it shouldn't be a literal place. If we're going to have resurrected bodies, then we have to live somewhere.

"Combined with Pauline call to celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:32-40, the scriptural teaching is that continence is the minimum requirement for clergy and celibacy is the ideal."

The plain meaning of the three references (1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6) is that one of the requirements for Pastor or Deacon is that they be married to a real live woman and have a family so they know how to lead a family, the local body given to them to lead by Jesus. Continence or chastity comes under adultery and having a good reputation. It is nonsense to read into this any celibacy theory.

Your use of 1 Corinthians 7:32-40 to support the celibacy theory fails in at least two places. The letter was written to the whole church, not just the leaders. To follow your arguement through to its logical conclusion we should all be celibate and then breaking one of the most fundamental laws of God, "Be fruitful and multiply". Celibacy is a gift of God, not a man made rule for the ministry and Paul says, few have it. This chapter 7 is Paul's judgment, not God's statement on the matter. God's declaration is "husband of one wife and children under control".

"And priests act in the person of Christ. "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21)."

So then priests aren't members of the church, the bride of Christ, if they are "married" to it. They must be like the groomsmen or friends of the groom or maybe more like Jacob when he became Esau after he bought the birthright. One would think that something that is as important as the bride's relationship to her lover, Jesus, if there was going to be an interim groom to whom she was married, that the scripture would be more explicit about this interim relationship.

The plain meaning of the three references (1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6) is that one of the requirements for Pastor or Deacon is that they be married to a real live woman and have a family so they know how to lead a family, the local body given to them to lead by Jesus

I agree, that is the plain meaning, but it still needs to be harmonized with 1 Corinthians 7:32-40, -- which you don't dispute calls for celibacy. It also needs to be understiood in the context of church primarily filled with adult converts. Obviously, if a celibate man, otherwise qualified, were to approach the church wishing to become a priest, the verses in Timothy and Titus would not be an impediment. This is why most Christian Churches allow married man to be ordained as priests and deacons; the Latin rite alone demands it also of the priests.

To follow your arguement through to its logical conclusion we should all be celibate

No, because the Epistle sets up celibacy as an ideal for those called to be "solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord" but not as a requirement for all. It is the natural reading that the priests should at least strive for celibacy, but the rest should marry, and the Church teaches precisely that.

So then priests aren't members of the church, the bride of Christ, if they are "married" to it

They are indeed distinct members of the Church, but your speculation that they are not members in any sense is nonsense that does not follow from Catholic ecclesiology.

"They are indeed distinct members of the Church, but your speculation that they are not members in any sense is nonsense that does not follow from Catholic ecclesiology"

You said they were married to the church, i.e. husband to the bride of Christ. How then can they be both husband and wife? This is like that old song "I'm My own Grandpa". Paul says in 2Cor. 11:2 that the church is espoused to ONE husband, Christ.

If celibacy was a requirement as it is in some churches, it would have been explicitly set out in the (1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12 and Titus 1:6)requirements, just as the husband of one wife is set out. 1 Cor.7 is Paul's observation from his experience of the vicissitudes of the ministry during his missionary journeys and just like Jack Bauer says in "24" to stay focused you have to be disinterested. But most are not called to that ministry, and both are good for God has given both.

But Paul states explicitly he has the power, the free will to marry if he chose to, 1Cor 9:5 "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren [brothers] of the Lord, and Cephas?" That should set to rest any law mandating the religious be celibate.

FK: "But at the same time, Baptism is only good until the next mortal sin, at which point they are again "out of Christ".

You have stated this nonsense in the past. God does not change His mind. You can not be un-baptized. Once adopted, He will not disown you. But, that does not mean that you have a sure ticket to heaven if, at the end of your life, you say I "do it my way," if in your heart you are Forest Keeper and not Chirst-like.

Then why are you confirming my nonsense as true? You say that Baptism is for the remission of sins, which must be done before one can go to heaven. But upon the next sin, that status is lost, but for a further work of man. According to you, God DOES send some of His adopted children, actual children of God (John 1:12), right to hell. But at the same time, you say this is not disowning them? This puts 100% of the power (and destiny of man) into his own hands. You said God doesn't disown, therefore, it is only man's free will decisions that determine eternal destiny. This just isn't Biblical.

The idea that "once saved" you can sin boldly, confident that — as God's elect — you cannot perish, is precisely where Satan's great deception becomes obvious.

That does sound like quite a deception, which is why I'm glad that I don't know anyone here who believes in that in the way you present it. Scripture does not say that we can go on sinning freely after salvation and everyone here knows it.

FK: "...how is this guy [someone who is in every way a Christian but has not been Baptized] any different from someone who has been baptized?"

The former is a sinner pretending to be a Christian.

So all the martyrs who were Baptized by blood at the end were all pretenders their whole lives?

My brain is starting to hurt. It is much easier discussing the faulty position of Sola Fide!

Yes, it is! :)

I don't know how we got on this topic of Hypostases, but the original idea was that grace is God's uncreated energy, which God conveys upon us through the Hypostatic interaction with us. Again, God is seen differently and separately in terms of Hypostases, the Father being distinct from the Son and both being distinct from the Spirit, yet all Three are fully God, and individiuble.

The idea of God's grace being the uncreated means rather than created means of our salvation was something the Church knew even as early as 2nd century, when St. Ignatius wrote about it in those terms. The trouble in the west began with none other than our dear St. Augustine, who disagreed with hesychasts on our ability to reach theosis through prayer and see the uncreated light of God. Apparently the Church did not have any issues with uncreated grace as seen by Ss. Ignatius, Basil, and Nazienzos prior to that.

You say that Baptism is for the remission of sins, which must be done before one can go to heaven. But upon the next sin, that status is lost, but for a further work of man

Baptism for the remission of existing sins, if there are any, a condition which must be met before we are adopted by the Holy Spirit. Since infants have no sin of their own, their adoption does not require remission of sins.

Adults on the other hand will sin, which is why we confess and and seek continual remission of sins in order to remain under grace. For if we don't ask for forgiveness, there will be no forgiveness. That is our decision. We know God's rule: no repentance, no forgiveness. repentance must come from the heart, so yes it is in our hands. Very much so. We are free to cleave to God or to embrace satan.

According to you, God DOES send some of His adopted children, actual children of God (John 1:12), right to hell

As an Orthodox Christian I would never, ever say that God sends anyone to hell.

How then can [the priests] be both husband and wife?

My understanding is that a priest is in the person of Christ to his parish, and only in his priestly function, and at the same time he is a member of the Catholic Church as the body of believers, which is the bridegroom of Christ. This may be an impossible arrangement in a carnal marriage but we are talking a mystical marriage here. Perhpas Jo Kus can elucidate this point further.

If celibacy was a requirement as it is in some churches, it would have been explicitly set out [in the pastoral letters]

It was not a requirement at the time the Epistles were written. You really need to read the article I linked in 7552, The biblical foundation of priestly celibacy, in particular:

Scholars generally agree that the obligation of celibacy, or at least of continence, became canon law from the fourth century onwards. Here certain incontrovertible texts are quoted repeatedly: three pontifical decretals around AD 385 (Decreta and Cum in unum of Pope Siricius and Dominus inter of Siricius or Damasus) and a canon of the Council of Carthage of AD 390.11
However, it is important to observe that the legislators of the fourth and fifth centuries affirmed that this canonical enactment was based on an apostolic tradition. The Council of Carthage, for instance, said that it was fitting that those who were at the service of the divine sacraments be perfectly continent (continentes esse in omnibus): «so that what the apostles taught and antiquity itself maintained, we too may observe».12 The decree on the obligation of continence was then passed unanimously: «It is pleasing to all that bishop, priest and deacon, the guardians of purity, abstain from marital relations with their wives (ab uxori bus se abstineant) so that the perfect purity may be safeguarded of those who serve the altar.»

Paul states explicitly he has the power, the free will to marry if he chose to

Actually it is doubtful that he does. The verses in question read

4 Have not we power to eat and to drink? 5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
(1 Corinthians 9)

The Douay commentary is

5 "A woman, a sister"... Some erroneous translators have corrupted this text by rendering it, a sister, a wife: whereas, it is certain, St. Paul had no wife (chap. 7 ver. 7, 8) and that he only speaks of such devout women, as, according to the custom of the Jewish nation, waited upon the preachers of the gospel, and supplied them with necessaries.

At any rate, the passage clearly (cf verse 4) speaks of physical power, not any ecclesial or legal privilege.

It is of course true that the celibacy is a discipline (as opposed to an immovable dogma) of the Latin Church alone and even then it is relaxed in some circumstances. It would be wrong to confuse the carnal marriage with the mystical marriage to the Church (or, perhaps, a parish) in which a priest finds himself, and Orthodox as well as Eastern priests can marry, or, more precisely, married man can be ordained as priests in these churches. However, our understanding of the "unius uxoris vir" is incomplete without examining both the historical and the mystical aspects of the exhortation.

I thought that God "shoved" grace down your throat, too!

Sure, but at least I admit it. :) More importantly, it is consistent with the rest of Reformed theology. I don't think that infant Baptism for salvific purposes is consistent with the rest of any theology so grounded in free will.

FK: "How many infants do you think enjoy having their breathing interrupted three times in a row? I doubt many. This is why infant Baptism puzzles me so much."

Say what?

I was referring to the preferred Orthodox practice of thrice dunking for Baptism, which, in principle, I salute! I was trying to illustrate, though, that this practice is nevertheless "against" the will of the infant.

Really, if God grants graces to whom He will and does so WITHOUT seeing their response (as you believe), what difference does it make if God's Spirit comes while a baby or an adult? The person does nothing to earn grace, so the person's age makes no difference.

It makes a difference to me because I think that the Spirit becoming indwelling happens at regeneration, which is only for believers. If the Spirit indwelled and sins were remitted at Baptism, then I'd have to change all of my beliefs about "belief". That would seem to wipe out an entire body of scripture as well. IOW, I'm invested. :)

things I have already refuted which you don't address

Really?

Like the salvation of Lot?

Only one time Righteousness being imputated to Abraham, Gen.15?

Gen.22 being a test for Abraham, having nothing to do with his salvation (Heb.11:17)?

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God (Rom.4:2)

Scofield Note: Cf. Jas ii.24. These are two aspects of one truth. Paul speaks of that which justifies man beforeGod, viz faith alone, wholly apart from works; James before the proof before men, that he who professes to have justifying faith really has it. Paul speaks of what God sees-faith; James of what men see-works as a visible evidence of faith. Paul draws his illustration from Gen.xv.6; James from Gen.xxii 1-19. James' key phrase-is 'ye see' (Jas.ii.24), for men cannot see faith except as manifested through works. (Scofield Bible, 1196)

FK: ...how is this guy [someone who is in every way a Christian but has not been Baptized] any different from someone who has been baptized?

Kosta: The former is a sinner pretending to be a Christian

FK: So all the martyrs who were Baptized by blood at the end were all pretenders their whole lives? No, FK, you are changing the subject. The man in your example was not martyred. I merely stated that a man who lives a Christian life would pretend to be a Christian if he refused or didn't seek to be baptized.

No true Christian will refuse baptism. NO true Christian will live a life in Christ and avoid baptism. On the other hand, someone who did not live a life as a Christian but whose heart was converted and he dies for Christ, he is baptized in blood and saved. Dying for Christ requires more faith than any of us probably have — put together!

[relating to when the elect become aware they are of the elect:] The Fathers spoke about this point here and there. Here's what +Diadochos of Photiki wrote in his "on Spiritual Knowledge, #77":

"... This is because, when someone rids himself of all worldly riches, he discovers the place where the grace of God is hidden [within the person at Baptism]. For as the soul advances, divine grace more and more reveals itself to the intellect."

That's pretty interesting. I've never thought of it in terms of actually having the grace already, and not knowing it. I suppose the "trigger mechanism" would have to be important. I will surely give this some thought. Thanks for posting.

Our status as children of God is not lost when we sin. We are not considered righteous in God's eyes when we disinherit ourselves from the Kingdom of Heaven (I have already given you these verses a dozen times), but that doesn't mean that God will no longer forgive us:

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:8-9

For if we died with Him, We shall also live with Him. If we endure,[NOT, WHEN we endure!] We shall also reign with Him. If WE deny Him, He ALSO will deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful"; 2 Tim 2:11-13

This fits nicely with what Kosta says later - that God sends no one to hell. We send ourselves their by rejecting Him. But even if we sin, we know that we have an advocate who intercedes for us - as long as we turn to Him in contrition and ask for forgiveness.

You said God doesn't disown, therefore, it is only man's free will decisions that determine eternal destiny. This just isn't Biblical.

No one said "it is only man's free will decisions that determine eternal destiny". It is a cooperation of two wills. As long as ours agrees with God's Will for us, we will enter the Kingdom. If we reject God's Will for us, we will not. But God sends us graces to move our wills and desires to DO God's will (cf Phil 2:12-13)

That [The idea that "once saved" you can sin boldly, confident that — as God's elect — you cannot perish] does sound like quite a deception, which is why I'm glad that I don't know anyone here who believes in that in the way you present it

Sure you do. Once you have declared yourselves elect, nothing that you do can effect that. Thus, sin to your heart's content! Why not? Party it up! 'Cause God's gonna cover you anyways... Pick up that cross??? Take the narrow path? Crucify one's flesh of your passions? Who put those verses in the Bible??? That's just filler, huh? I guess Jesus had some extra time to kill with all of those teachings about obeying the Law and the Commandments and taking the narrow path - since you can say "Lord, Lord, I BELIEVE" on March 12, 1985, and be saved no matter what!!! WHOOPIE!

Nothing like self-delusion...

Regards

FK: "Where does the Bible say that to be "alive in Christ" one must BE sinless?"

Mat 5:48

Here it is (KJV):

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Well that sounds simple enough, ... I suppose. :) But perhaps you are interpreting "perfect" here the same way you did with Job? If so, then we have a problem, because you posited before the possibility that Job was sinless, and one of the extremely RARE examples of that in the Bible. Therefore, either no one is alive in Christ, or all believers are just like Job, and are uniquely sinless. Neither of these seems possible. I'll just throw out another alternative and say that "perfect" does not mean sinless in either case. Instead it means that one is right with God and loves God, even given his human status of sinner; a mature believer. Such a person is alive in Christ.

Most of Protestantism is easy. You keep saying that we are supposed to be Christ-like, but I really wonder if you have any clue what that means?

I will agree that resting in God's promises is EASIER than having no security and never knowing where you're going to spend eternity. I think God likes it when we rest in His promises:

Matt. 11:28-30 : 28 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

---------------

"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (notice here the word "find it"; it should tell you that it was not decided before all ages).

It doesn't mean that, it just means that "few" will find it because only "few" are elected from before time.

Luther made it easy. That's why it spread like wild fire: no more fasts, no more confessions and, best of all, pecca fortiter (sin bodly), sin all you want...easy, just be yourself, you have been "elected" from before aeons, so "don't worry, be happy." What virtue! And all that made to look like theology.

Is this what you really, truly think? The Reformation spread because it stood for an out and out free for all in sin? LOL! Well, it took you seven and a half large in posts, but you finally figured us out. :)

[On infants not having the capacity to be like Christ or to "let sin reign"]...."Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Mat 18:3)

Here is the passage with the verses right before and after:

Matt. 18:2-4 : 2 He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Infants cannot humble themselves, nor can they be called or stand, at least at the time you would Baptize them. Jesus is talking about childlike faith, which infants cannot possess.

"For the tenth time, Mary gave us Christ himself, which is the entirety of the Revelation, and you keep asking what books she wrote. The answer is, she wrote all of them."
__________________________________

Let's try to be straightforward in our discussions. You stated in the Book of John he called Mary the "Mother of the Word" and I asked you what passage. I had never seen this in SCRIPTURE. Now you are changing what you said to an interpretation of SCRIPTURE. I know you won't recognize what you've done but you just illustrated how the false doctrines emerge in your church.

Are you truly serious, or is it because your wrong and can't admit it that leads you to say Mary "wrote all of them" when referring to who wrote the SCRIPTURES. You should know that this statement is false on the face of it, or are you also "interpreting" SCRIPTURE to mean that Mary is a part, or coequal, of the TRINITY?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.