[AlbionGirl]

We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.

That's so moving. It speaks so much to the importance of not corrupting an individual's relationship with God.

This thread has not resulted in much discussion of the posted article.

Do you guys really think that Luther's ideas on enslavement of man to sin are really well thought through? He seems to me to fit his own description of Erasmus, i.e. he seems also to me like a sleeping and dreaming man who blurts out first yes, and then no.

But beyond that, the discussion early on took on the idea of whether God was capable of wrath or not, and that started me thinking on a couple of passages in Scripture which trouble me.

The first, is the passage on Jacob and Esau. It certainly can lead one to thinking that God is capable of a kind of capricious partiality. Erasmus' explanation that God hated Esau because he was aware of his future sinful life, makes some sense to me, but it doesn't do much for assuaging the uncomfortable feeling that this passage holds for me. The idea that he will have mercy on who he will have mercy is perfectly understandble, but if I'm predestined for hell or don't know that I at least have a shot at being saved, how can I not fall into despair?

The second Scripture is the one in which Jesus calls the non-jewish woman a dog. He does finally extend his Grace to her after she fully prostrates herself (I understand and accept that part), but that passage always left me with the sense that gentiles were of second importance to Christ. I always admired the woman in the Scripture, because she was the epitome of humility. Why do you suppose He called her a dog, that couldn't have been a neutral term, could it? Is her humility and persistence the moral of the story?

[HarleyD]

I think you ask some fair questions AG. I've noticed there has been little discussion of the article. Erasmus point from the Roman Catholic position was that man has free will and thus capable of making decisions (e.g. Mary freely choosing to have the Lord Jesus). Luther, OTOH, argued that man is totally incapable of making a choice. God has to release him from his bondage instilling him with faith to come to Him.

This to me isn't any thing different than Pelagius and Augustine argument over Augustine's prayer in my tagline. Pelagius felt the prayer was absurd for man already should have the capablity to give to God what He commands. Augustine, like Luther, felt everything comes from God. God commands us and then He provides. He provides grace, faith, everything. There is nothing that you have or are that hasn't been given to you by God. The simple fact that you desire to know God is a gift to you given to you by God. All who believe that Jesus is the Christ are born of God (1 John 5:1). You cannot be unborn.

Christians are presumptuous to think that everyone if given the "choice" want to go to heaven. This makes it out to be some intellectual work that someone must do which is nonsense. It is simply that there are children of wrath and children of God. Why this is I don't know. Esau was a child of wrath. He despised his birthright. He didn't want it. Jacob was a child of God. He desired the birthright (in very unReformed speak).

I believe the scripture you are referring to is the following:

Mat 15:22-28 And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed." But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us." But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once.

Many commentaries devote pages to this passage. Our Lord Jesus was here to die for His elect but while on earth His role was as a prophet sent to the House of Israel. In this manner was He addressing the woman. It is also noted that our Lord knew the perfect way to reach into people's hearts and draw them out. Although His response may seem harsh to us (almost cruel) He drew this lady's into more and more confrontation until her faith was established.

It is a mystery to me and others as to how God instills faith in us through His word but we know faith is a gift from God. This is a case in point here. By the time our Lord Jesus was complete, He could say "your faith is great" to this woman. He had instilled faith into her.