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

Protestant Reformed Theological Journal ^ | April 1999 | Garrett J. Eriks

[Forest Keeper]

Thanks for the images and the great link, Alex. I look forward to exploring it. After noting the comments on the home page, is it settled in the Catholic Church that the Shroud is genuine?

[Forest Keeper]

I did not watch "The Passion," so I can't comment on it.

Unless you don't watch movies in general, I would highly recommend it. I was teaching a Sunday School class right before it came out, and had to research the technicalities of what Jesus went through with the flogging, etc. I found that the portrayal in the movie was spot on to the research I did, as brutal as it was. For me, the movie was much more of an experience than a film.

[HarleyD]

Wasn't Jesus refering to the Jonah STORY?

No.

Mat 12:39-41 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;...The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

Our Lord Jesus called Jonah a prophet, not a story. And He verified the repentance of Nineveh to the preaching of Jonah.

"...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"

Now you're grasping at straws. Are you saying the Virgin Birth didn't happen?

Science does have a fair amount of evidence. It has fairly good evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years.

That doesn't mean anything. It cannot be proven-only surmise. But the data from which they develop their "theory" could be flawed.

BTW-I'm not a creationist who believes the everything was created in six LITERAL days. The text is murky and I'm not sure it states that. However people are mistakenly to think man "evolved" and the scriptures are wrong on this because it's not "scientific". Well neither is making an iron ax head float or a Virgin Birth. You can't pick and choose which miracle to believe in.

Are you saying that God is "fooling" scientific study regarding the age of the world?

Are you saying you don't believe in a virgin birth? To me this is a far greater miracle than creating the world in six days. Those same scientists who study the age of the world also will raise questions in the virgin birth. Are you willing to say they are right on one but not the other?

A string of verses.....

Interesting. Every single verse that I've brought up that has historically been interpreted as I have you question; even the statement David made about "my Lord". This was also the text our Lord Jesus referred to in support of Himself,

Mat 22:43-44 He *said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET"'?

Yet you say this is "subject to interpretation."? But the ONLY doctrine that I stated doesn't have any support in scripture you defend by quoting some church father.

Let's summarize. You don't believe in the Genesis account of creation. You've argued that the Virgin Birth could possibly be done in other ways. You denied Jonah existence even when our Lord stated he was a prophet and preached to Nineveh. And you denied a string of prophetic verses including one our Lord Jesus interpreted. What you have defended was scientists, evolutionists, and flawed teachings.

Why do you think I am Catholic still?

I think my last paragraph answers that question.

[HarleyD]

Factual errors exist in the Bible,

I find that most "factual errors" are simply a misreading of the text and understanding of the cultural circumstances. For example consider the following:

Mat 8:28 When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way.

Mar 5:2-3 When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him, and he had his dwelling among the tombs. And no one was able to bind him anymore, even with a chain;

This story both in Matthew and Mark (Luke follows Mark's account) are about the same incident. Matthew states there are two people while Mark and Luke state there are one. It may seem like an error until one understands that it was Jewish custom in their writings (which Matthew follows in his narration) to only refer to the person speaking. Thus Matthew is simply following the Jewish custom of only referring to one verse Mark and Luke who more fully recount the story.

I bring this up simply because people often state there are errors when, in fact, they do not understand the context or customs of the writer. This btw happens a number of places with genealogy's, etc. As far as the species of a bat or hare I would have to see what verse you're referring to.

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...

It's only your's and others "failing" because you are simply reading the scriptures incorrectly. If you start with the understanding that God is a sovereign God and He will do what He pleases, then everything else will fall into perspective; including God's love and how this is compatible with Him raining fire on the heads of Sodom or flooding the world.

I will also be frank with you all: my faith comes from God and not from the Bible.

You're not alone. Most people today do not spend any significant time in studying God's word. They run out and buy books about the word, devotions with a small verse and large anecdotal stories, or even books on fictional stories about how someone feels about certain passages. All this mush and dibble about the oversubscribing of God's great love for mankind to the exclusion of all else is where Christianity has ended up simply because THEY DO NOT READ THEIR BIBLE AND PRAY TO GOD FOR UNDERSTANDING. That is why we have all these silly views and people end up NOT believing the very nature of God.

The scriptures are very clear, if there is ANYTHING that God cherishes more it is His word. He states time and time again; study the word to show yourself approved, hide the word in your heart so that we may not sin, listen to the word to get wisdom, cast the word and it won't come back void, and on and on and on. Psalms 119, the longest one right in the middle of scripture is devoted solely to the word of God. Our Lord Jesus is the living "Word" of God. Yet reading God's word is the very thing we resist. Now if God places such high stores on His word shouldn't we?

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.

You may pick and choose your "miracles" but it's a poor way to interpret scripture and understand the nature of God.

[HarleyD]

A wonderful and accurate narrative Agrarian.

[Kolokotronis]

"A wonderful and accurate narrative Agrarian."

For a simple Orthodox farm boy he does pretty good, doesn't he?! :)

[kosta50]

As far as the species of a bat or hare I would have to see what verse you're referring to

For someone who reads the Bible I would expect you to know what verses I was referring to. But since you insist, let's just stick with Leviticus (because there is a many, many more), 11:13-19.

"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and ... the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."

In fact, the very next set of verses continues in the same manner:

Lev 11:20 "11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

Creeping fowls? Four-legged fowls?

Or, you may go a few verse up, to Leviticus 11:6 and read

"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

[kosta50]

is a mnay = are many

[jo kus]

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.

Paul throughout is attacking proud Jews! Even into Chapter 4, when he uses David and Abraham as examples of people who were justified WITHOUT THE LAW!

"But now, without the law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets" 3:21

See, there are two systems of pleasing God. The first is under the Law. Those who try to consider themselves under the Law must fulfill it to the letter, perfectly. For any transgression against an infinite being is an offense against the entire Law and against God. Since ALL men sin over the course of their lives, these Jews, who are trying to earn their salvation by good deeds (without inner disposition of love) are failures.

The other system to come to God is through faith, under the system of grace. This system was in place even BEFORE Christ - as many people WERE righteous in God's eyes based on their faith and trust in Him. Abraham was considered righteous BEFORE his circumcision...thus:

"Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? No, but by [the] law of faith. Therefore, we conclude that [a] man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" 3:27-28

Remember what Paul had said previously about Gentiles who didn't have the Law???

"when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature that which is of the law, these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, accusing and also excusing their reasonings one with another) in the day when God shall judge that which men have covered up, according to my gospel by Jesus, the Christ. Behold, thou doth call thyself a Jew and art supported by the law and doth glory in God and dost know [his] will and approve the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law, and art confident that thou thyself art [a] guide of the blind, [a] light of those who [are] in darkness, an instructor of the ignorant" 2:14-20

A pretty clear comparision between the Gentiles who don't have the Decalogue, and those who do...

"For circumcision verily profits if thou keep the law, but if thou art a rebel to the law, thy circumcision is made [into] a foreskin. Therefore if the uncircumcised keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his foreskin be counted for circumcision?" Rom 2:25-26

Those who try to live under the law, and not faith, will fail.

he [is] a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit [and] not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God.: Rom 2:29

It is not following the Law that makes one justified, it is turning one's heart to God - this, naturally, becomes a Law onto itself. Inner disposition - faith - is what God desires to see manifested from us. Not simple following rules. Those who try to earn salvation must be perfect. Those who come to God through faith are justified in God's eyes. They rely on God's grace, a free gift. They treat God as a loving Father who will fulfill His promises. This is what Paul is saying in the first several chapters of Romans, not that all men are evil by nature.

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.

So because infant baptism is not explicitly mentioned, yet IS by the first Christians, it never happened - or it happened without permission of God! Again, the Apostles who wrote Scripture were the same men who spread other teachings throughout the world that were taken for granted and were not addressed in letters to communities. As to your perceived difference between Scripture and Tradition, I don't see it.

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.

Certainly, they highly respected him, but that doesn't mean they would listen to him. Heck, we see this today in the Catholic Church! We have an infallible teacher, the Pope. But many "catholics" believe something totally at odds with him, such as abortion. Having an infallible teacher doesn't mean people are "forced" to follow such teachings.

Sola Scriptura has a solid foundation in scripture, which you have been shown.

You've shown me no such thing. I have given you verses that describe OTHER means of fully completing the Christian that doesn't mention Scriptures. Being "useful" doesn't make something the sole source of our faith, brother. And Sola Scriptura is actually ANTI-SCRIPTURAL, as it ignores what Paul said to the Thessalonians, when he commanded them to hold onto the traditions taught, both ORAL and WRITTEN. You would have Christians disobey the Bible's command! Sorry, Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men because it moves people away from some of the teachings given by God to the Apostles, such as Infant Baptism.

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

You have absolutely no proof whatsoever that God did anything regarding writing or inspiring the Bible WITHOUT the witness of the Church. Anyone can claim that a writing "inspires" them. As I said before, I can write a story and claim God wrote it through me...You are making a presumption that God had something to do with the Bible. And you have not explained how you know God had anything to do with the Scriptures. HOW DO YOU KNOW?

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

You are putting God in time again.

I was supporting my view that God was in control of what went into the Bible, not men.

How do you know that?

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.

You keep putting God into time. God's decisions are made in the past to us, but in the eternal now of God. He sees across all time, so "when" He makes a decision, it "was" made both during creation, during the crucifixion, during WW 2, and 20 years from now. One decision spanned across all of our times. So in a sense, yes, He does see our response and makes His decisions at the "same time".

What infringes on God's sovereignty is a human claiming that he is saved despite future sins that would cause him to lose his future inheritance.

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

I was also quite impressed with the role of the actress who played Blessed Mary, Mother of God. You don't see a single incident of anger or even a grimace on her face, other then a very pained look in her eyes that remain focused only on Her Son and never on anyone else.

I was also very impressed with her performance. It's too bad the film was so snubbed at the Oscars. Oh well, I know that's not why Mel made it.

[jo kus]

Our Lord Jesus called Jonah a prophet, not a story. And He verified the repentance of Nineveh to the preaching of Jonah.

And I called "Dilbert" a man, when he is a cartoon charecter...We really don't know if Christ was merely refering to a charecter in Jewish Scripture that was intended by the writer to be merely a parable. Personally, I am open to either possibility. It does not matter one way or the other whether there really was a prophet who convinced the entire capital of the Assyrians to suddenly put on sack clothes...

Are you saying the Virgin Birth didn't happen?

Of course I am not saying that!!! I am saying that science will never be able to prove anything regarding the Virgin Birth. This belief is based solely on faith.

That doesn't mean anything (age of the earth based on rock ages). It cannot be proven-only surmise. But the data from which they develop their "theory" could be flawed.

Scientists can figure out the age of materials using various means that can be duplicated over and over. Through such experimentation, they can "surmise" that a rock is a particular age. I am not aware of anything that has cast doubt on the age of the universe - at least it is over 10 billion years old. Even if science was wrong, say only one billion, that still forces us to re-consider our view on the scientific claims of the Scriptures. I personally don't think God is trying to tell us the date of the earth, but using a story, similar to a fable, that explains particular spiritual truths of His love for man and His creation of the universe out of nothing.

If I am wrong, that the earth is actually 6000 years old, how will this effect my spiritual growth and life in Christ? Frankly, it is a big ado over nothing. By refusing to countenance the earth's old age, you are merely making Christians look like foolish anti-science superstituous people. Until the evidence shows the contrary, it is more feasible to consider the creation story as a vehicle to tell God's plan of WHY He created us, and not HOW He created us.

You can't pick and choose which miracle to believe in.

Miracles still happen today - but we are not required to believe in them. Whether Scripture is relating an actual historical accounting of a miracle, or using a literary device to convey something of deeper meaning, it is not always clear. The Church does hold to particular miracles as being historical, such as the resurrection and the Virgin birth of Christ.

Interesting. Every single verse that I've brought up that has historically been interpreted as I have you question; even the statement David made about "my Lord". This was also the text our Lord Jesus referred to in support of Himself

Harley, we are on the same side here! I, too, believe that the Scriptures are pointing to the Messiah. But this takes a different approach to Scripture then a Jew would take. Quite honestly, the OT has different ideas of the Messiah. Very few people considered that he would be God or that he would suffer the death of a crinimal - or hang on a cross. A Sola Scriptura Jew would have a very difficult time coming to believe that Jesus was the Messiah without looking at the Bible from a whole different perspective. Thus, Christianity was an innovation for Jews.

Let's summarize. You don't believe in the Genesis account of creation. You've argued that the Virgin Birth could possibly be done in other ways. You denied Jonah existence even when our Lord stated he was a prophet and preached to Nineveh. And you denied a string of prophetic verses including one our Lord Jesus interpreted. What you have defended was scientists, evolutionists, and flawed teachings.

You can't seem to follow my arguments. I am not holding to any of them per sec. I am merely playing "devil's advocate", looking at Scripture from a Jew's point of view. Quite simply, you claim that Christianity was a natural succession of Judaism. That shows very little knowledge of Judaism and how they looked at Scriptures. Early Christianity had very little success among Jews. It was much more accepted by Gentiles who didn't have the Jewish paradigm.

And as usual, you place people into a little box because you see things black or white - me vs. them. We just don't know if God was intending to give a scientific lesson on how the earth was created. Evidence in nature (which God created, by the way) tells a different story. Since the Scripture is inerrant, it is YOUR reading of it that must be wrong. It must be that God DIDN'T mean to discuss the astrophysics behind how the moon was created...

I never said I didn't believe in the Virgin Birth - I said science cannot prove or disprove it. It is a statement of faith, which, as a Catholic, I accept. And nor did I deny ANY of the prophetic verses. I am saying that the JEWS did not accept them. Perhaps you should read postings more closely before you make such sweeping and false generalizations. Nowhere did I say any of the above that you claim for me.

[jo kus]

It's only your's and others "failing" because you are simply reading the scriptures incorrectly. If you start with the understanding that God is a sovereign God and He will do what He pleases, then everything else will fall into perspective

What does that have ANYTHING to do with the Bible listing two angels, and then another part of it listing one angel at the tomb? Or one section saying a person is 22, and another 42? It seems when things don't go as you plan, you take the "God is sovereign" defense. This comes from your literalist view of Scripture, trying to see God writing Scriptures in a manner that "Allah" wrote the Koran. Christianity is not Islam or Judaism. It is not a religion of the Book, but a religion about a Man - Jesus Christ.

[kosta50]

[Hd to jo kus]What you have defended was scientists, evolutionists, and flawed teachings

Next time you are sick, please call your minister and make sure you don't take any drugs, or seek medical help. Obviously, you believe that science is a source of false knowledge, which crumbles like a sand castle when confronted with biblical statements about the age of the world, the classification of animals, and so on. Why? Because, to you infallibility of the Bible is in the literal sense, like reading a fairytale.

When Galilleo showed crater-studded lunar surface to Roman clergy, they dismissed it as an "illusion" created by the devil the way my older daughter dismisses dynasaur bones (she learned that in a Baptist church, by the way!), "in order to deceive us."

The Church simply held the view, based on Scripture, that the "heaven" is the sky above us and that it must be perfect because that's where God resides, so the Moon, one of the celestial spheres, could not possibly have imperfections! That sounds like some arguments on this Forum I have seen thus far.

It is clear that the writers of both Testaments believed that God "comes" from the heaven (sky) above us (which is completely contrary to Orthodox/Catholic teaching of God as being a Spirit who is uncircumscribed and present everywhere).

When he showed that, by brilliant observations of Venus, that it was the Sun that didn't move, he was accused of "vehement heresy" and -- thanks only to his advanced age and fame -- sentenced to house arrest, having been exhonorated by the Catholic Church only in the 1992, after 350 years of official censure.

What was his "heresy" HD other than using reason that God gave us to discover how boundless and great His glory, made manifest in His Creation.

To this day, we have people who berate science as something "evil," or incapable of proving anything. You see, science is not concerned with why things work, but how. More importantly, science doesn't have to convicne you that it works. It simply does. So, your sad little jabs at science as being unable to show the age of the rocks, speaks volumes that your mind is still back 350 years with the accusers of Galilleo (who believed that the earth was flat).

The only reason I brought up things such as bats, hares and so on, is because we know for certain that the Bible is flat out wrong on those, which makes one wonder if that is simply because our copies are imperfect and the original was perfect, or because it really doesn't matter if anything in the Bible happened as it has been described, but rather that the spiritual message that was revealed to the writers is conveyed.

[Forest Keeper]

Do you HAVE to know the existence of hell to be able to love? Christ abides in those who love, even the man in the Amazon jungle. Does he know about the Christian concept of hell? Who cares.

Where did you get the idea that I was saying that someone was required to believe in hell to be saved? I was just pointing out that a believer who does have access to the Bible should believe in hell because of how clear the concept is in the Bible. Besides, what would a believer say we need saving from if there is no hell?

So the Sinner's Prayer does not make someone elect. Well, that's a start.

Right. God named the elect before the foundation of the world, so that was the causal element. Saying the Sinner's Prayer, or some form of it, is what all of the elect will do per God's ordination. It is the moment of salvation and when the Spirit descends upon the believer.

For example, consider Mat 25 and the Sheep/Goat parable. Christ KNOWS who is a sheep and who is a goat. The "animals" don't separate themselves. Christ does. Nor do the "animals" recognize Christ in their actions of goodness or refusal to do good.

But I thought that the sheep do follow the Good Shepherd because they recognize His voice.

[Forest Keeper]

Again, time! God chose us "first". From God's point of view, there is no time, there is no "first" or "second" or "last". To us, certainly, God chose us first. But since we are talking about God's choice, I don't see how God CANNOT foresee our response and make His decision based on that. Of course, either opinion is acceptable to the Church.

My position would be equivalent to the view of some Catholics that God makes His decisions without foreknowledge. I would be interested to know if that view follows up with my conclusion that therefore, God must have caused our acceptance, otherwise, not all of the elect would accept, and there would be a paradox. That would seem to get rid of free will, so how is this resolved?

God's will and pleasure might very well BE to choose those who choose Him - granting more grace as that man continues to accept God more in His life. If the man turns from God, God turns from the man, withholding further grace that might "force" the man to Him.

Then God is not sovereign. If God's will is DEPENDENT on man's choices, then we have some measure of power or affect on God. I do not believe it could be God's will to give us power or influence over Him, just as I do not believe that God delegated powers unique to Him to man. You are denying God's omnipotence.

[annalex]

is it settled in the Catholic Church that the Shroud is genuine?

I am directing your question to Swordmaker who either knows or can find out. I don't know. The Church is extremely, maddeningly, cautious in putting her stamp of approval on miracles and relics. The typical attitude is that as long as a relic or miracle does not contradict the Revelation, it is fine to either believe in it, or disbelieve.

[Forest Keeper]

No, everyone is not lost until their next confession. First, all sins do not separate us entirely from God, so we aren't "lost" as a result of every sin.

I remember you have distinguished between venial sins and mortal sins, but still everyone commits mortal sins, so I thought your position was that they are lost until the next confession. Why else is confession necessary to salvation?

Second, we BOTH believe that man is lost until his "confession" - that "Jesus Christ is Lord" through Baptism.

Well, yes, except for the Baptism part. :)

My disagreement with you is over the CERTAINTY of eternal salvation and the inability to "lose" this status, regardless of future actions.

What you say is a OSAS approach, and I do not believe in that anymore. So, future actions do matter. I just believe in God's promises to His elect in that regard. Those actions are future included events to the salvation.

A person cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless he accepts Christ - whether that means your concept of that, or whether that means a person abides in Christ and loves, although not knowing WHO Jesus of Nazareth was. Your concept closes the doors to billions of people who happen to have been born in the wrong place at the wrong time.

How so? I don't declare for God who gets into heaven and who doesn't. God picks His elect and they will go to heaven. It only makes sense to me that He would also pick some who lived their entire lives without access to a Bible, etc. God is sovereign and makes His own perfect decisions for His own perfect reasons. I don't see how this is in conflict with my concept.

This [someone turning to Christ] can happen at any stage in a person's life, even on one's death bed.

I fully agree. God can do anything He wants, and your example of the thief is exactly right. I have always believed this.

[AlbionGirl]

I still can't sort out the free/enslaved will argument, but I found this part of a sermon by Rev. Spurgeon and I immediately recognized myself, I've always prayed as if I were a Calvinist, and believed my will to be deficient.

Excerpt from Spurgeon's Sermon: Free Will- A Slave

...Any one who believes that man's will is entirely free, and that he can be saved by it, does not believe the fall...

But I tell you what will be the best proof of that; it is the great fact that you never did meet a Christian in your life who ever said he came to Christ without Christ coming to him. You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer - for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free-will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying,

"Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but I do. There are many that will go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not-that is the difference between me and them."

That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out. I ask you again, did you ever meet a Christian man who said, "I came to Christ without the power of the Spirit?" If you ever did meet such a man, you need have no hesitation in saying, "My dear sir, I quite believe it-and I believe you went away again without the power of the Spirit, and that you know nothing about the matter, and are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." Do I hear one Christian man saying, "I sought Jesus before he sought me; I went to the Spirit, and the Spirit did not come to me"? No, beloved; we are obliged, each one of us, to put our hands to our hearts and say-

"Grace taught my soul to pray,
And made my eyes to o'erflow;
'Twas grace that kept me to this day,
And will not let me go."

[annalex]

the movie was much more of an experience than a film.

When "The Passion" was out 2 years ago Ann and I were with our newborn son and could not go. At some later point she went alone, and I never saw the film till much later, when I rented it on DVD.

Come to think of it, there was a hesitation to watch it on my part and the circumstances played to the hesitation. The reason is that I knew enough of the film to realize that it is not a narrative movie like some others, but rather, exactly as you say, an experience. And I saw that as a problem. My visual imagery of Christ comes from Christian art, the icons and medieval western art. The experience of the Passion, on the other hand, is the experience of the Holy Mass, without cinematographic environment, of course. Together, the traditional art and the Mass form a perfect whole and I was afraid that the movie would damage that whole.

It did not do that at least on the DVD, which is a testament to Gibson's tact of approach: he managed not to displace a single well-ingrained traditional image and instead added his own imagery: the closeups of the flagellation and the nails, the hermaphrodite Satan, Pilate and his crew, etc. The intense serenity of Mary preserving her Son's blood added to our theological sense of her as the First Chruch and did not compete with Mary the Theotokos. The crucifixion by Mel blended in with others, like this slightly overdone

Simon Vouet, 1622

It did not penetrate my consciousness as much as the mass-produced Crucifix in my church does. I have to conclude that film, perhaps because of its tactile impact, does not really penetrate the mind as deep.

This is one image movies can't beat:

Crucifix with Scenes of the Passion
Italy, Pisa, 13th century
c. 1230-1240

For good measure

Rublev, late 14th century Russia

[Forest Keeper]

Apparently, you reject these Gnostic Gospels, correct? Why? How do you know that God actually is favoring the Gnostic side, the "remnant Church"? These New Agers are making this very claim, that the Catholic Church rejected the Word of God - the Gnostic Scriptures.

I know that Gnosticism is wrong because it goes directly against the teachings and writings of the eyewitnesses to Christ. Gnosticism takes a man-centered theology to a new level, and humility appears to play no part of it. Jesus never preached "knowledge is the way to salvation". It is easy for me to dismiss the Gnostics.

FK: "There was participation, but no cooperation."

I see these words as meaning the same thing.

Well, then that could explain much! :) I happen to draw a sharp distinction in defense of my idea of God's sovereignty. But if you see them as meaning the same thing, then OK.

Is Christianity a REVEALED religion, or a philosophy of man? If you claim the former, than there is no such "freedom" to interpret EVERY possible meaning found in Scripture as coming from God.

Christianity is a revealed religion, I just don't believe it is only revealed to a very few of one particular branch of Christianity.

God bases His list of the elect based on what we do. No, He bases it without any consideration of the elect's response...

Happy? either is a suitable Catholic position.

Yes, I'm happy and I'll take it. :) Sign me up with the Catholics holding the latter view.