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

I might welcome oral teachings as a compliment to scriptures if they are in support of what is already in the Bible, or at the very least, not contradictory to it.

That's well and good, but one's interpretation should not be the rule of faith of Christianity. Christianity is NOT a religion of the book, but of a God-man, Jesus Christ. If anything, it is quite amazing how Christianity often had to SEPERATE themselves from the "book", the commonly-held interpretation of the Bible. For example, "he who hangs on a tree is condemned". The book says Jesus is condemned. But we base our religion on the experience of the Risen Lord, which was prophesied by reading this book in a CERTAIN MANNER! As a result, by slavishly following "the book" while disregarding Christian interpretations of it, I find it difficult to understand how one can accuse those first Christians of "contradicting" Scripture, as if that disqualifies one from being Christian. The Bible was NEVER their first and only rule of faith! Christians found that they HAD to "contradict" the commonly-held notions to explain their cognitive dissonance that they experienced.

Before condemning an interpretation, one SHOULD look at what the FIRST Christians did and practiced. It is possible that your own interpretations might be incorrect - since you are far removed in time and culture from the original authors of Scripture, the Apostles.

Regards

However that is different that saying Jonah is a story meant to convey a spiritual truth or it was impossible for the Great Flood to cover the entire world. The Bible clearly states this to be so.

The Bible does NOT make that clear! Jonah does not begin "this is a true story, it is not a parable"...As to the Great Flood, the Scriptures can be interpreted to mean the entire KNOWN world. It is unlikely that men in Israel would have knowledge about people in North America. It is just as acceptable to say that God flooded only the world of Noah.

It has always been held by the early church fathers (and even our pre-Christ Hebrew fathers) that the Bible was the error free writing of God given to man. The early church fathers took great care to distinguish between God's word by setting it aside in the scriptures we have today.

But it is also clear that the Church Fathers did not always take the literalist view of Scripture. There is a whole school from Clement of Alexandria (with Origen as his prime student) that delved into allegory readings of Scriptures. St. Augustine himself wrote a whole book on the Literal interpretation of Genesis, saying it was acceptable to read the Creation account in a spiritual sense - not taken literally. St. Thomas Aquinas ALSO noted, while refering to other Fathers, that it could be seen that animals evolved and changed by noting nature. Thus, it is incorrect to say that the Church looks ONLY to the literal view of Scriptures. Example? There are numerous interpretations of the Song of Songs - and very few of them (none, I'd think) see it as an erotic love story...

Today many want to distance themselves from this position claiming there are all sorts of astronomical, geographical, or zoological errors, so the scripture must be only for "spiritual awareness". This is utter nonsense. Would you want to make the claim the Virgin Birth is biologically impossible so that it must be "spiritual" interpretation? There have been people who have made such claims.

These are two separate things. The Virgin Birth can NEVER be disproved by scientific means. We will NEVER have such empirical evidence. However, modern science CAN tell us that the earth took longer than 6 literal days to form, through EMPIRICAL means. By scientific study, we find evidence of rocks that are greater than 6000 years old. God is the God of nature as well as Scripture. HE does NOT lie. Thus, either our INTERPETATION of Scripture is incorrect, or science is incorrect. I think their is ample evidence to hold that science is correct - BUT - the Church does NOT make an infallible declaration one way or the other. One is able to hold, with clear conscience, either view (FK, another example of that Catholic flexibility!). As a Catholic, we are not held to the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, scientifically speaking. However, it IS inerrant in that what God wanted to say was infallibly said. Apparently, God wasn't telling us that the earth was created in 6 literal days, but something else. God was using a creation story to pass along information about Himself and man, about how HE created the universe out of love, and so forth.

There is nothing "novel" about Christianity nor was there anything novel about it at the time.

Whoa, nelly! Hold on there! If Christianity wasn't novel, how come so many Jews did NOT convert? Where does the Hebrew Bible explicitly spell out that the Messiah must hang from a tree? Or that the Messiah must rise from the dead? Or the idea that God became man? Or that there was three persons in one God? Or that during their communion feast, the followers would eat the body of their savior??? Or that the community no longer had to observe circumcision or dietary laws, or a change in the sabbath day???? A Jewish reading of the Scripture found Christianity to be QUITE novel.

In fact Paul takes great pains to show that our belief system is exactly as Abraham. I believe there is a thread on this showing how we are losing this view

OF COURSE he does! But notice how few Jews actually buy into it! Do you think the original Jews reading the letter of Paul to the Romans understood that letter with the same authority as the Torah??? To the Jews, Paul was crazy and a destroyer of the Law. Of course WE read Paul's writings differently. But Jews at the time didn't make the connection. There was a major cognitive dissonance going on with early Christianity - between what was in Hebrew Scriptures did NOT match up with their experience of the Risen Lord. (for example, Deuteronomy says that "he who hangs from a tree is condemend". A sola Scriptura view of the OT would say that Jesus was NOT the Messiah). Those who hadn't experienced the Risen Lord would consider the Gospel to be foolishness and a stumbling block.

Regards

I think, though, that this realization makes it such that the average Orthodox Christian spends amounts of time at prayer in church that would astonish the average "drive-through" American Christian.

I'm sure that it would, and I admire the devotion.

Jonah does not begin "this is a true story, it is not a parable"

As to the Great Flood, the Scriptures can be interpreted to mean the entire KNOWN world.

But it is also clear that the Church Fathers did not always take the literalist view of Scripture.

However, modern science CAN tell us that the earth took longer than 6 literal days to form, through EMPIRICAL means. By scientific study, we find evidence of rocks that are greater than 6000 years old. God is the God of nature as well as Scripture. HE does NOT lie.

believe

"If Christianity wasn't novel, how come so many Jews did NOT convert?" They did. They're called Christians.

"Where does the Hebrew Bible explicitly spell out that the Messiah must hang from a tree?" Isaiah - "bruised for our transgressions"

Or that the Messiah must rise from the dead? Our Lord Jesus stated Jonah was this type but it was concealed from even the apostles.

"Or the idea that God became man?" King David - I said to my Lord

"Or that there was three persons in one God?" Genesis - Let us make man in our image

"Or that during their communion feast, the followers would eat the body of their savior???" Nowhere-that's Catholic doctrine. Thought you throw me a curve, eh? ;O)

A Jewish reading of the Scripture found Christianity to be QUITE novel.

"But notice how few Jews actually buy into it!"

I am reminded of Gideon who God told to attack the Midianites. Gideon had a whole army at his disposal but God wanted the glory and said that He would conquer the entire Midianite army with but 300 of the weakest men and He did just that (Judges 7). The church doesn't rest on our shoulders but God's.

The alternative is to say that only some bear the sin of Adam as opposed to others.

This is exacly what is being argued for Blessed Mary and John the Baptist, as well as Christ himself. Do not forget the children and the insane either.

How are these passages [Mark 2:7 and John 20:23] reconciled?

On the face of the former, they don't even need to be, as it is the pharisees say that only God can forgive sin. But even taking the word of the Pharisees as inspired in this instance, Christ (God) has placed the Holy Ghost (God) into the apostles and then empowered them to forgive sin. The only reason this is met with any mental resistance in the Protestant world is the extrascriptural anticlerical indoctrination.

I am unaware of a case where Jesus quoted oral tradition as authority, whereas he quoted scripture as authority very often.

It is true, but neither do we consider Jewish traditions as authority. We consider the word of Christ as authority, and all of it was initially oral.

Much of what Christ said has never been committed to paper, as is clear from the Gospels themselves. Many times Christ is described teaching the multitudes but the content of the teaching is not revealed. One can speak the words of Christ as recorded in the Gospel in the space of 30 minutes at the most, -- where is the rest? He spent about three years teaching. Likewise, St Paul and St. John mention that they would rather come and talk than write, and their ministry took years and years.

We can assume that the essential teaching of Christ is expressed in the Gospel; the gnostic heresy that there is or was an essentially different hidden teaching was condemned by the keeper of the totality of the revelation, the Church. Nevertheless, that leaves the commentary and the clarifications to the recorded doctrine, and that Holy Tradition was committed to writing in a non-Canonical way as the patristic legacy, the hymnody and the iconography.

Our Lord Jesus refried to many events such as Adam and Eve, Noah, the Queen of Sheba and Jonah as real events.

Wasn't Jesus refering to the Jonah STORY? Jesus can refer to a fictional charecter as well as I can refer to a comic strip charecter. Can't I say something like "Did you see how Dilbert made fun of that engineer?" Does that mean that Dilbert existed?

If you believe the Virgin Birth as a miracle than why not creation? Science can prove that a virgin can't give birth under EMPIRICAL means.

Science can only observe nature. They make the basis of their hypothesis on this datum. They cannot ABSOLUTELY tell us that something will happen, only that based on past observable data, we can infer with a high probability that a woman cannot give birth to a child without male sexual interaction. Of course, technically speaking, women CAN give birth while remaining a virgin today, through artificial means! Thus, science can only give us its conclusions on ordinary observations, and thus, cannot take into account a divine intervention. Anyone who disagrees with that has philosphical presumptions at the heart of their so-called science.

Science HAS NO PROOF that the world was formed over billions of years.

Science does have a fair amount of evidence. It has fairly good evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years. Again, this is from observation of nature. And in this case, we are proving a positively observable phenomenom, the existence of million year old rocks, not whether NO WOMAN can give birth without having sex, a negative. Logically, it is impossible to disprove a negative. All it means is that we haven't observed one such event yet. That doesn't make it impossible.

God is a God of nature but that God can also make the sun stand still, part the Red Sea and cause an iron ax head to float. People can look at a rock and believe it to be far older but they cannot duplicate it in laboratory conditions. I will say I have my own personal take on this but it is unorthodox to say the least.

Are you saying that God is "fooling" scientific study regarding the age of the world? Science dates rocks through a well-known and reasonable manner. Could it be wrong? Sure. But for us, there is a reasonable amount of information available, scientifically, to question whether God intended Genesis 1-2 to be scientifically accurate. THEOLOGICALLY, it is inerrant. Astronomically, I question it. Perhaps you are aware of the Church's high respect for scientific study that predates the Reformation. Even these men had their doubts about the "newness" of the earth. Men such as St. Augustine. They realized that nature came into being SOLELY by God - but that HOW He did it is not necessarily stated in Scriptures.

They did. They're called Christians.

Relatively few converted during the time of Paul.

bruised for our transgressions

That CAN be taken to mean the NATION of Israel OR a servant of God - but it is not necessary to take that to mean THE Messiah. Isaiah does not state that this man would be the Messiah. And very few people understood him in that manner among the Jews. Thus, the stumbling block of Deuteronomy.

Our Lord Jesus stated Jonah was this type but it was concealed from even the apostles.

So how would you expect the Jews to pick up on this if the men who followed Jesus around for three years couldn't figure it out? Read the end of Mark's Gospel. Even AFTER the resurrection, they still had "doubts"... I find this quite amazing and indicative of how Christian interpretation of the OT is a novel spin on Hebrew Scriptures - one that very few Jews admitted to.

King David - I said to my Lord

Again, this is subject to interpretation. A Jew reading his scripture does NOT have to read it that way.

Or that during their communion feast, the followers would eat the body of their savior???" Nowhere-that's Catholic doctrine. Thought you throw me a curve, eh? ;O)

Well, I wasn't trying to! I am merely relating the first ancient witnesses of Christianity, St. Ignatius, St. Justin the Martyr, and even Roman writers, such as Pliny. They all realized that Christians were doing something out of the ordinary with bread and wine. It should be quite clear that a reader of John 6, say, a Jew, would be offended by such writings, just as the first hearers. The Romans often accused Christians of being cannabalistic... Ask yourself, "why?" Why do Christians insist that they are eating the Body of their savior when pressed by the Roman interrogators? Seems like they actually believed it - your interpretation 1900 years later notwithstanding.

Not to Paul. He understood it very clearly. Not to the Bereans. They searched the scriptures.

So did the Thessalonians (who rejected Paul) whom Paul compares the Bereans to! Paul considered them more worthy because they believed Paul. I would think that Paul was able to convince the Bereans based on the power of the Spirit, not the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. They searched the Scriptures with open hearts, perhaps heard Paul's teachings on the Suffering Servant, and, by the Spirit's indwelling, were able to overcome the obstacle that every Jew faced - that Jesus' Messiahship, according to them - had failed. The Messiah was suppposed to make things better and would free them from captivity. Jesus flaunted the commonly-held interpretation of the Law, the Romans still were in control, and Jesus was ultimately condemned to hang on a tree. AS A JEW, the Scripture is not very convincing as a tool for conversion...It is only through the Power of the Holy Spirit that Paul would be able to convince ANY Jews.

I wrote : But notice how few Jews actually buy into it!"

You responded :"This is your synergistic Arminian view rearing its ugly head. Where is the grace of God or God will have mercy on those who He will have mercy?

Ah, the old fall-back. It's all God's omniscence, His plan. When all else fails, fall back on "it's God's will". Well, doesn't this go against the idea you have that "God only died for the elect?" What was Christ's purpose of coming and teaching to the Jews who would largely ignore Him? Using your theology, wouldn't it had been more proper for God to teach the Gentiles? That He would spread His Word to those Gentiles who He had foreknowledge about?

My point was not to get into God's manners and ways. The point was that Christianity WAS an INNOVATION, one that the typical Jew would have been hard-pressed to accept, simply because their was a cognitive dissonance between Scriptures and what the Christians were claiming - a crucified Savior! WHERE in Jewish tradition do we see such an expectation? IF Isaiah's suffering servant was part of mainstream Judaism (interpreting these passages as we do today), Jesus would have certainly been more understood and accepted by other Jews. Even Peter tried to convince the Lord NOT to undergo suffering. They had no clue about any such suffering servant and the Messiah being the same person.

The church doesn't rest on our shoulders but God's.

Why do you think I am Catholic still? I'd be out the door to some easy-going Protestant fluff if I didn't believe that Christ established His Church among the people who would later be called "Catholic" by St. Ignatius less than eighty years later. I'd sure love to have a nice big thick steak today! Fasting? HA! Why bother, if I could just find a nice "health and wealth" community that bought into the "once saved - always saved" garbage. Then I could do whatever I wanted, because I had declared that God has already chosen me, no matter what I do...

I remain Catholic because I believe it has the fullness of God's revelation, not because it has the best human explanations of a book.

Regards

I think jo kus already answered your comments exhaustively, but I feel I owe you an answer because your post was directed at me.

Factual errors exist in the Bible, whether it has to do with two different ages of some Jewish king, or the number of children of some Jewish woman, or with the confusion having to deal with what species of living things does a bat or a hare belong to (unless they evolved into present day species), etc.

So, now it is necessary to redefine what is meant by "error." The Bible cannot err in its message of God, because it is a message of love. That much we know. If you can find anything but love in everything the Bible proclaims, you are not reading it correctly because it would be contrary to God being Love.

I will be the first to admit that I often scratch my head and say "where is love in all this?" But that is my failing and when I ask others to show me they can't either, although they claim they see nothing but love in all of it! Which is soooo not convincing indeed...

I will also be frank with you all: my faith comes from God and not from the Bible. The Bible reveals God's Creation and God's Divine Economy, but does not "put" God into your heart. I also know that God's perfect love that I know through Him is expressed in imperfect language and intellect of man.

When you mix Perfect with imperfect you corrupt the Perfect even if you don't desire it, and even if your hand is guided by the Holy Spirit simply because there are no words to express the Perfect, nor could our minds comprehend the Perfect, so our knowledge and expression of the Perfect is always imperfect.

Which is precisely the reason the Fathers held from the beginning that understanding Scripture is a special gift from God and not something to be attained by pure intellect, and henceforth not available to everyone.

Hence, the power of the simple formula we all understand in our hearts but cannot show empirically in its totality -- God is Love. Oh, we can show hormonal and electrical changes in our bodies when we feel loved, but they all fall short of what the experience of love is. Such "empirical evidence" is not even recognizable as love.

But, love, although manifested physically (poorly nonetheless) is not physical or subject to physical laws at all! It is eternal and unlimited. Those whom you love truly today you will love the same tomorrow and forever, not matter where they are, no matter how far. It transcends time and space and all physical barriers and limitations of nature.

Thus we speak of love being limitless, priceless, "great" and "warm", "burning," something we would give up our own life for, our a kidney or an eye if need be, and yet no one can put a dimension or shape to it (heart is merely an "icon" of love).

Yet, although no one has ever seen love, we all claim to know love, even how to recognize love. Love supersedes our reason and logic and we "fall in(to) love," cleaving to the one we are in love with but cannot explain why, and even admit to being blinded by it.

All these terms we use in our daily experience that is known to us as true and very real, yet they cannot be measured, described, or illustrated in their , apply, forst and foremost to God; yeah, especially to God! So, when we find Love in the Bible, we know that it is true, because we know it already. That is our infallible "proof" that the Bible is inerrant.

Now, considering your silly comment about the Mystery of the Virgin Birth, as is the case with the mystery of the Holy Trinity, etc. as jo kus says, science has no power to (dis)prove it! Nor is it the purpose of science to do so. Not is it in the power of the science to prove or disprove God. Quite to the contrary, science only reveals the unimaginable power and glory of God.

Just the fact that we learn more and more about Nature proves that with God everything is possible. We certainly include the Virgin Birth in that, and a Big Flood. But, I can see the Virgin Birth happening much more than God changing His mind as if surprised and disappointed with mankind and deciding to drown the whole rotten lot along with its animals (what have the animals done to deserve that?).

The Virgin Birth makes sense in our Salvation; drowning the whole world because we turned out wicked on God's watch is not as clear. Surely, God had other options at hand! If God's revelation to man has to do with our redemption, out of love, and return to Him, then the Virgin Birth is certainly a big part in our soteriology, and more importantly a necessary step in its realization. The Big Flood is not. God could have killed every living thing, including Noah, and re-created man just as easily.

FK: "I don't agree (that the word "alone" is not required in Rom 3:28)"

Which rule of English language requires the word "alone" to qualify an idea when only one thing is excluded from a statement? Again, you are reading what is not there for the sake of your theology.

Actually, I'm not the one who is reading what is not there, I'm just reading what IS there and taking it at face value. You are the one who is building in all the "buts" and "except fors" that are plainly not there. You are the one who consistently inserts exceptions into scripture to make it match Tradition. When scripture matches Tradition, there is no need for addition, when it doesn't, then the true meaning is ...

EVERY parable that Jesus speaks of regarding the Kingdom of Heaven talks about rewards to heaven OR damnation to exclusion of heaven. ... I am not sure where you get this Scripture idea that judgment determines what seat we will get at the table. I think we should explore this more...

I understand that is your interpretation, and I respectfully disagree. Here is an excerpt from the article The Joy of Heavenly Rewards by Matt Perman:

Where does the Bible teach degrees of happiness?

"According to the Bible, how we live for God on earth will result in a greater or lesser enjoyment of His glory in heaven. For example, Paul said "This light and momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen, for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal" (2 Corinthians 4:17-18). John Piper comments on these verses: "Paul's affliction is `preparing' or `effecting' or `bringing about' a weight of glory beyond all comparison. We must take seriously Paul's words here. He is not merely saying that he has a great hope in heaven that enables him to endure suffering. That is true. But here he says that the suffering has an effect on the weight of glory. There seems to be a connection between the suffering endured and the degree of glory enjoyed." In other words, our experience of God's glory in heaven "seems to be more or less, depending in part on the affliction we have endured with patient faith."

"In the same line of thought is Matthew 5:11-12: "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad for your reward is great in heaven." Again, "If a Christian who suffers much for Jesus and one who does not suffer much experience God's final glory in exactly the same way and degree, it would seem strange to tell the suffering Christian to rejoice and be glad (in that very day, cf. Luke 6:23) because of the reward he would receive even if he did not suffer. The reward promised seems to be in response to the suffering and a specific recompense for it."

"Suffering is not the only thing that brings about a greater reward in heaven. Our faithfulness to Christ in doing good works for His glory will also have a bearing on our degree of happiness (or, reward) in heaven. To the slave who made ten pounds it was said "Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, be in authority over ten cities" whereas the slave who made five pounds was told "And you are to be over five cities" (Luke 19:17-19; cf. Revelation 22:5; 2:26, 27). And in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 Paul explains that the quality of each Christian's work will be revealed at the judgment. He concludes by saying "If any man's work which he has built upon it [the foundation of Jesus Christ] remains, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire" (vv. 14-15)."

HE rewards us based on our actions - but all is a gift. We cannot say "God, I did such and such, you OWE me heaven." Not even the most holy man can say that.

Of course God doesn't "owe" us anything, but this is another example of salvation depending on the decisions of man, his actions. Then, in the same breath you will say that everything comes from God. These do not match under the theory of free will. At some point you are going to have to admit that man is, by himself and independent of God, partially responsible for his own salvation, in your view.

He who works expects payment, wages. Thus, it is no longer gift. Works of the law and deeds of love are often times the exact same action, but internalized completely differently.

OK, I might see what you're talking about now. I always thought you were drawing a distinction based on whether someone got money or not. But now it seems like you are focusing on the motivation of the "worker". If the motivation is to get something of value in return, it is a "work". If a thing is done out of love for God, then it is not a "work". Is this what you are saying? If so, since I claim that perseverance is necessary, I would have to agree with you.

[TBC ...]

I will try to be brief, since I made my views on these subjects pretty clear in my lengthy exchange with Kosta.

Kosta perceptively pointed out in one of his posts that he and I agree on the basic premise that the Bible cannot be used as a scientific textbook or infallible source of historical details. The other half of his perceptive comment was that he disagreed with most of his Orthodox brethren on where to draw the line with regard to what he is willing to believe as factually true in the Bible.

As I have reflected on this thread, one of the things that struck me was that the "argument" that Kosta and I were having is a very rare one within Orthodoxy. In fact, I'm not sure that I've witnessed in print or person any similar discussion of note. It is the kind of discussion that we tend only to have when we are in a situation like this, with non-Orthodox participants.

As with so many things in Orthodoxy, we seem simultaneously to hold to mutually exclusive positions. On the one hand, we know good and well that at least some of what we believe to be true in the Bible, the lives of saints, etc... has to be not quite true, or not true at all. On the other hand, Orthodox Christians tends to take a stance of belief toward the entire body of Tradition, including the entire Bible.

jo kus stated that the Fathers of the Church do not always take a literalist view of the Scriptures, and pointed out the Alexandrian school. This is very true. But I would point out that the Antiochian school took a different emphasis: one of rather literal interpretation. Both are reflecting means of exegesis that we see in the Scriptures themselves.

Origen himself, in what I have read of him, didn't take the view that the literal stories weren't true in Scripture -- as I mentioned before, look at his famous defense of the literal truth of the story of Daniel and Suzannah in the Apocrypha against the smirking attacks of Julius Africanus. It is an exchange that could be right out of a "liberal vs. conservative" Biblical scholar argument today -- and Origen is the conservative.

What Origen and the Alexandrian school wanted to make sure of was that the Church not take *only* the literal meaning of Scripture. They also wanted to make the point that the spiritual meaning is the most important meaning of every passage of Scripture. In the process, they emphasized the allegorical aspect to the point of making the Antiochians (again I'm painting broadly) feel that they were casting the literal meanings into doubt, which for the most part, I don't think they were.

The Church ultimately decided that both "schools" were correct (which shouldn't surprise us, since both were based on Scriptural precedents.) We basically accept the stories as all being true. We acknowledge somewhere in the backs of our minds that perhaps not every detail is true. And we have such a strong emphasis on the importance of the Spiritual meaning that it generally doesn't occur to us to argue about whether Job or Jonah existed or not.

The internal evidence that Christ treated the basic narratives of the Old Testament as historically true is, to me, overwhelming. The evidence that the Apostles treated the OT and the events in the life of Christ that were later written down in the Gospels as being literally true is also, to me, overwhelming. And the evidence that the Fathers treated all of the above as literally true is likewise overwhelming. But all of these emphasized above all the spiritual meaning.

The idea that we have to choose between the two strikes me as being grounded in some sort of Western rationalism, but I understand that some people have an easier time accepting Christianity by taking a basic stance of doubt toward the history recounted, choosing rather to look more exclusively at the spiritual meaning.

It is impossible for me to come away from the services of the Orthodox Church and the writings of the Fathers and see anything but that they simultaneously treat the stories as literally true, and that the spiritual meanings are deep and paramount. Both.

Regarding who amongst the Jewish people did and didn't accept Christianity, what I was reading last night the commentary of St. Theophylact on the reading for the Sunday of Orthodoxy from St. John.

In it, Philip comes Nathanael, and says to him, "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.

Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel."

There are so many things here that St. Theophylact talks about. First, Philip identifies Christ as being the one spoken of in the prophets. Second, Nathaniel, knowing the Scriptures, is aware that the Christ will not come from Nazareth, so he doubts it -- as is reasonable. Next, Christ greets him before Nathaniel can even speak, and calls him a "true Israelite, in whom there is no guile." He acknowledges here that Nathaniel is an Israelite with a true understanding of the OT, and that his doubts about him are not based in craftiness or pride, but from a sincere desire to correctly recognize the Messiah.

Then, Christ demonstrates that he knew all about the conversation Philip and Nathaniel had (which was apparently under a fig tree). Nathaniel, then, like Philip, acknowledges Christ as the Son of God.

Now, it is worth noting that what convinced Nathaniel was his direct contact with Christ. All questions of whether the Christ was from Nazareth or Bethlehem disappeared in the face of direct experience of Christ's presence and omniscience. To be sure, Nathaniel would learn, as would the rest of the disciples that Christ really did come from Bethlehem and was of the seed of David. The Scriptures were true, but it wasn't through arguing about them that any of the disciples were convinced that Christ was the Messiah.

You can either believe [that the Great Flood covered the entrie world]...or dismiss it. However if you dismiss this, or any event in scripture, then you might just as well dismiss everything else.

Another wasted bullet in the air, HD, as jo kus aprtly showed your error in assuming that the world is the entire world.

The early church fathers took great care to distinguish between God's word by setting it aside in the scriptures we have today

Based on the inerrancy of its message, not accuracy in geography, or astronomy, or zoology, or even history.

Of course we don't have any way of knowing what is the original. It doesn't matter as both Agrarian and I've pointed out

Well, if there are factual errors of transcription, language, zoology, mathematics, astronomy, geography, etc. then we really can't say that, can we? What we can say is that the copies and different versions maintain God's inerrant message (of love).

There is nothing "novel" about Christianity nor was there anything novel about it at the time. There were many Jew who understood and came to God through faith accepting Jesus as the Messiah promised by God in the Old Testament scriptures

No HD, this is another one of your sweeping generalizations. There was nothing even remotely close to Christianity in any form of Judaism -- for no one even suggested that any kind of work can be "good" on a Sabbath.

Another unsupported claim here is that there were "many" who accepted Jesus as Messiah...First, in Judaic definition of the Messiah does not have anything in common with Jesus Christ, our Lord. The Messiah was to be ordinary man, anointed (picked) by God to become (literally) the next king of Israel. Jews emphatically reject the notion that man can be God (although they never entertain the idea that God can become Man). Jews emphatically reject the notion than anyone can atone or die or "buy" someone else's sins (that's even biblical, you ought to know).

My next question is just how "many" are "many" who accepted Jesus? If they were "multitudes" as Agrarian believes, someone else would have written about this besides the Apostles. If the High Priest personally dealt with Christ, someone would have made a note because it is not everyday occurrence that the High Priest (the highest official of the country's priesthood) meets and act against someone in person. Nor is it without reason to believe that Romans would not have recorded an important person, with a large following that is even seen as a threat, especially when such an important person was sentenced by the highest official of a Roman Province.

I am sure if the Pope excommunicated someone publicly, the newspapers and archives would record it and document it. I have no reason to believe that it would have been any different in those days for the scribes to record such events. It is not necessarily that I am saying this did not happen: I am saying that those following Jesus were not that "many", not that important, and when He got arrested most of them scattered lest they be crucified as well.

If Christianity was such a large sect within Judaism it would have been impossible to throw them out of the synagogues. The truth is that by and large Israelites rejected Christ and still do. They see nothing Jewish about Christ, but an apostate. So much so is it seen as a different and novel religion by Judaism that one can be a Jew even if one does not believe, but never as a Christian. Only Evangelical Christians believe that somehow Judaism and Christianity are "tied" together. Jews obviously think otherwise; to them Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive, as it used to be for Christians for 1900 years.

Finally, without going to gentiles and spreading the word of Christ's message, Christianity would have died out, as the Sadduccees and Essenes died out. The only reason the Pharisees didn't is because they turned into rabbinical Jews after Jamnia in 100 AD, after having rejected Christian books and cursed Jesus of Nazareth. They are the only survivors of one of several sects of Judaism of the pre-Christ era.

FK: "OK, I checked and there is a clear correlation between 14 and Rom. 3: 10-12. No problem."

Clearly. Paul is directly quoting it. When people quote things, they are quoting within that context! Thus, when Paul is quoting OT Scripture, he is calling to mind THAT context, not inventing a new doctrine!

I see the connection between Rom. 3:10-12 and Psalm 14, but I don't see how this carries through to Rom. 3:23. Since you apparently do not believe Paul was shifting gears starting with verse 21, how long does Paul use words like "all" or "all men" and only refer to the Jews? I suppose you are going to tell me that verse 24 means that all of the unfaithful Jews are saved by grace? But wait, you already agreed with me that the reference was to the elect, not the Jews. This is very confusing.

Holiness doesn't necessarily follow from being book smart or knowledgeable about doctrines.

I know exactly what you mean and agree completely.

Why can't God continue to work through men whom He has promised would be the pillar and foundation of the truth? Why can't the Holy Spirit allow us to KNOW the fullness of the Truth through other men whom have been verified by the community and the Scriptures?

Those are fair questions, and my answer is that certainly God COULD have done that. However, based on the results I have seen, I cannot reconcile them back to God on every account. I do not see how scripture and Tradition can both be right.

Did any Jew consider Moses as a fallible teacher? Check the Gospels. Sure, they knew he had sinned by striking the rock again. But they were confident that God spoke through Moses in an infallible manner.

While you do raise an interesting point in distinguishing between infallibility and sinlessness, in this case I must still strongly disagree. After everything they had seen with their own eyes, what were the Jews doing while Moses was on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments? What did the Jews do in the desert to warrant their wandering for 40 years? How many times did the Jews grumble at Moses? If I put myself in their place, it would not have occurred to me to do any of these things if I thought my leader was an infallible teacher.

Your own tradition has led you to believe that ONLY the Bible can be the source of faith - although that is NOT IN THE BIBLE. Thus, it comes from Protestant TRADITION. Would it be fair to say you are being hypocritical?

No, that would not be fair. :) Sola Scriptura has a solid foundation in scripture, which you have been shown. You disagree with the Biblical interpretations, and that is fine. One difference is that we both agree that what I use is an authority, while the reverse is not true.

How do you know that EVERY writing in the Bible is from God? How do you know that some didn't get left out? Only the Church can witness to the Bible's source and completeness.

You're right, the assembling of the Bible was too hard for God, or maybe He just didn't have time. Thank ~~God~~ the Church for its witness and authority in assembling the Bible in all its wisdom. Only ~~God~~ the Church could determine which books were correct for inclusion into the Bible.

Some believe that the Bible is inerrant in only matters pertaining to salvation. Thus, historical or scientific errors don't matter. The Catholic Church doesn't teach that. She teaches that God's revelation is inerrant.

On this one, I am squarely with you! :)

God "foresees" everything we do. Thus, He is able to plan accordingly without destroying our free will.

UGH! :) You are implying again that God plans His will around the decisions He already knows we have made. Yet, you will deny this!

FK: "I don't see how a man can use his free will to just "decide" to be perfect."

Me neither. But God doesn't require man to be perfect to enter the Kingdom. All those righteous people in the OT. Were ANY of them perfect or without sin???

You are taking me completely out of context. The subject of my quote was the authorship of the Bible. Look it up. I was supporting my view that God was in control of what went into the Bible, not men. I wasn't talking at all about salvation.

FK: "Even when you say that God foresaw, either He is the luckiest God of all time to have everything work out as He wanted, OR, He ordained and caused it to be so, OR, He saw what man came up with and said OK."

Forget about luck. But there is truth to all of the rest of what you said. God is a truly magnificent God. He brings out His will, despite our own will (which means we sometimes sin). Thus, God's will is done, and we remain free.

I was presenting mutually exclusive options! :) How can you say the latter two are OK? The only way that is possible is if God saw man's choices, and then molded His plan around them. That infringes on God's sovereignty.

Does the fact that ancient Hebrews could not distiniguish that bats are not fowl make Bible unreliable? Perhaps as a source of zoology, but that's not what the Bible is for, as I mentioned earlier.

I think you are unfairly applying today's standards to the standards of the time of the author. In those days, it appears they defined a "bird" as any animal that flies. There is nothing unreasonable about this. It was only later that man decided to distinguish between birds and mammals. There's nothing wrong with that either, but it certainly doesn't make the earlier designation wrong. It just means that we classify differently today. Who knows how we will classify 100 years from now?

What if Job really did not exist? Does that change what the book of Job has to say?

Absolutely 'Yes'. Since there is no arguable reason to suppose that the story of Job was an allegory or parable, then if it was just made up it would put into question every other teaching of scripture. How would anyone know what to believe? Does your church teach that part or all of the OT is only metaphor, when there is no clear context that it is so?

What if Adam and Eve are only proverbial parents of ours and not real, historical ones? Does that change the message of their transgression, does it make us any less fallen?

It completely changes the message because it never happened! Does God need to lie and invent things that never happened? If God wanted to just explain the nature of our condition at birth why not just do it, as opposed to concocting a false story about it. I believe it matters a great deal whether the stories of the OT are historically true or not. Jesus speaks of Adam for goodness sakes. Was He lying?

Unless you can show me otherwise, in context (as I said), +Paul is saying that "real" widows do not re-marry; in general, that widows and widowers should not re-marry.

My original comment was directed toward your assertion that Protestants would object to the passage. I still have no idea why you would say that. Paul does not say or imply "must not".

Actually, I'm not the one who is reading what is not there, I'm just reading what IS there and taking it at face value.

Ridiculous. Where is the word "alone" in Romans 3:28? What language useage requires it to even be implied? This is based on YOU reading into Scriptures what is not there. You have already admitted that we must love to be saved, correct? Thus, how can faith be alone and be saving? Please.

You are the one who consistently inserts exceptions into scripture to make it match Tradition.

Tradition is useful to explain passages of Scripture. Whether it is Protestant or Catholic tradition, we both rely on it, no matter how much you dislike the idea.

Here is an excerpt from the article The Joy of Heavenly Rewards by Matt Perman:

Interesting, but avoids the obvious...That Christ doesn't specifically mention a higher or lower place in heaven. ALL His parables that talk about the Kingdom of God discuss entrance TO the Kingdom, not varying degrees of the Kingdom! Sure, we can ascertain what Mr. Perman says regarding HOW MUCH we love. We Catholics look at it this way: All who enter heaven will be completely filled with God. But some will have larger containers to be filled! However, this has nothing to do with judgment into the Kingdom, when Christ discusses the matter.

Christ's parables don't speak of different levels of glory in heaven, but whether a person even gains ENTRANCE to heaven. Look at Matthew 13, I believe. You'll find several "Kingdom" parables. Not one discusses your idea.

Of course God doesn't "owe" us anything, but this is another example of salvation depending on the decisions of man, his actions.

You just got done posting me a section on how our actions get us different levels of glory in heaven, now this...What is going on? God judges us based on our decision to suffer willingly in His name. I still don't understand this "detachment" you seem to desire between God and man. When I am faced with a moral decision, I don't sense an invisible hand forcing me to do one thing or the other... God has aided me by forming my will, by placing in me the desire to do His will. But it is still I who uses these gifts, freely. OR I can freely reject them. The simple fact that the Scriptures OVER AND OVER command men to do something pretty clearly tells us that WE are to decide.

At some point you are going to have to admit that man is, by himself and independent of God, partially responsible for his own salvation, in your view.

The choice is set before us - death or life, as my tagline states. WE make the decision, based on the tools God has given us. Let's look at an example. Let's say we have two seniors in high school. Both are average students. With one, we give him no incentive, no aid, no counseling to pursue a higher education. We make no relationship between making more money and college degrees. We leave it up to the student. Most would party and not choose to sacrifice to get through college. Now take the other person. We raise him to understand the benefits of college. He has parents that are examples (by their jobs and desire to learn), he is pushed by them, by guidance counselors, and so forth. His intellect and will are formed so that going to college seems a "no-brainer". AND YET, HE IS THE ONE MAKING THE CHOICE, ISN'T HE? God instructs us, guides us, enables us to choose the good and see how it will benefit us. Yet, we are responsible for choosing God or not. In a manner of speaking, we MUST choose God to be saved. How can we repent otherwise? Does God toss you on your knees? And is that you repenting, then? I find this conversation a bit silly. I don't feel an overwhelming will forcing me to do anything. I do things because God has outfitted me to more often choose the good.

If the motivation is to get something of value in return, it is a "work". If a thing is done out of love for God, then it is not a "work". Is this what you are saying? If so, since I claim that perseverance is necessary, I would have to agree with you.

Well, we are on the same page, then, at least here.

Regards

In those days, it appears they defined a "bird" as any animal that flies. There is nothing unreasonable about this. It was only later that man decided to distinguish between birds and mammals

Nevertheless, it makes the Bible a source of incorrect information. If every word is the Bible is true, this is incompatible. Clearly, the inerrancy of the Bible is not in every word and dotted i, but in the message it brings forth.

How would anyone know what to believe?

It shows how we should be (like Job) if disaster strikes. Never accuse God, and always trust in Him. It's easy for us to love God when things are going good, but any shake their fists at God for their misfortunes. The story of Job simply tells us that such a thing would be wrong.

Does your church teach that part or all of the OT is only metaphor, when there is no clear context that it is so?

No.

My original comment was directed toward your assertion that Protestants would object to the passage

I didn't say they would object, I said it's not their favorite +Paulian verse because it is never cited by them, yet they have a select set of verses they awlays repeat, but not the ones that talk about hair length, head covering and the like.

God need to lie and invent things that never happened?

Why would a story of what happens when we transgress and reject God change the nature of our fall, which happens daily -- as we fall repeatedly? What's important in the story of Adam and Eve is that we can recognize ourselves in them, because we repeat their error and "want to be like gods." Adam and Eve exist as "archtypes" of humanity. But excavations show that mankind did not just happen over night, or even in one week.

If God wanted to just explain the nature of our condition at birth why not just do it, as opposed to concocting a false story about it.

In Islam, Muhammad simply writes down what Allah dictates to him. That result is the Qur'an which means "reciting" in Arabic.

I am not aware of any Protestants who think of the Bible in this manner, no matter their high regard for scripture. But perhaps some Protestants do regard the Bible in this way. I doubt seriously that any Catholic or Orthodox thinks of the Bible as a "reciting".

But is that how Calvinists think of the Bible? God simply dictates to people who then just record the dictation word for word, like a good secretary?