Posted on 12/27/2016 1:56:11 PM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans
OCTOBER 30, 2013
Johann von Staupitz (c. 1460-1524) on God’s eternal predestination
Towards the end of the Middle Ages there was what one may describe as a Neo-Augustinian renaissance which included a number of outstanding theologians such as Gregory of Rimini. This increased interest in Augustine’s writings to a large extent set the table for the Protestant Reformation, specifically with regard to the doctrine of predestination. Johann von Staupitz (c. 1460-1524) was Vicar-General of the Augustinian Order in Germany and a very influential mentor of the young monk Martin Luther. Von Staupitz, however, later had to release Luther from the Augustinian Order (perhaps you’ve seen the 2003 film Luther – I remember the scene where Luther is released by Von Staupitz distinctly – see picture below) to preserve the good name of the Order with Rome.
[Image Omitted]
Though Von Staupitz never joined the Reformation and remained a Catholic both in disposition as well as in doctrine in a number of areas, he nonetheless still adhered to a number of Protestant-leaning doctrines, one of which was his view of predestination. He came to be associated with the “Lutheran heretics” as a result of it, and in 1559 Pope Paul IV put Von Staupitz’s works on the Index of Prohibited Books.
Below are a few excerpts from his work Eternal Predestination and its Execution in Time:
“In order that the whole plan of creation should not be frustrated, there has been ordained preservation by divine power for nature and for free will the grace of the divine Incarnation; and thus natural life is upheld by preservation, a morally good life is sustained by grace, and both by God Himself. Accordingly, before the creation of the world it was determined that no one would be able to do morally good works without the grace of Christ.
Because mercy and justice contribute equally to the praise of the Almighty it has been decreed that some should be elected and predestined to conformation with the image of the Son of God and to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. But those who do not have faith are judged already.
This [election] is the first grace which precedes nature and works. No one elicits or merits this grace, nor is this grace due to merits foreknown by God, nor to good use of reason in the future foreseen by God, nor to merits already performed. Rather, the sole source of this grace is the most kind and generous will of God.
Once this first grace is given, other graces follow one by one without fail, and Christ is put under obligation to save the elect. That is exactly what He said to Zacchaeus, ‘It is necessary that I stay in thy house,’ implying that even this Israelite, this son of Abraham, was elected according to promise. Necessity in the same sense of the word led to Christ’s passion, crucifixion, and death for sinners…
Paul, illustrious doctor of the Church, tongue of Christ, and the most direct disciple of the most Holy Trinity said: ‘Those whom He predestined He Himself also called.’ He did not say, ‘He had them called,’ Many are called by the ‘light that has arisen over us,’ others by the law, by prophets, by gifts, by tribulations, by Apostles or preachers of the faith. But not all are elected. However, those who are freely predestined are called without fail in their lifetime unto faith by God’s powerful will. For indeed this is not done by Moses nor by the prophets nor by the Apostles, but by God Himself Who speaks to the heart.
Concerning this call the Son said, ‘No one comes to Me unless the Heavenly Father draws him,’ Paul also preached this in an excellent manner: ‘I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.’ For indeed he who plants is nothing, nor he who waters, but He who gives the growth, that is God, is all.
Provided the exterior call is efficacious, then you could certainly say that all who are called [i.e efficaciously] will doubtless be justified. For just as God is committed to call all who are predestined, so He is committed to justify all who are called. This is not a natural obligation but an obligation of grace which the Apostle fully appreciates when he says, ‘He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, will He not also give us all things with Him?’
For just as the knowledge of natural things flows from the knowledge of the first principle, so also each individual grace flows from the grace of predestination. In this and through this, as I have indicated above, Christ has been made the servant of our salvation and ‘has come into the world not to be ministered to but to minister and to give His life as a ransom for many’.”
– Johann von Staupitz (c. 1460-1524), Eternal Predestination and its Execution in Time, chapters IV & V
Same theology here as St. Augustine.
Yes, indeed:
“... the human will does not obtain grace by freedom, but obtains freedom by grace; when the feeling of delight has been imparted through, the same grace, the human will is formed to endure; it is strengthened with unconquerable fortitude; controlled by grace, it never will perish, but, if grace forsake it, it will straightway fall; by the Lord’s free mercy it is converted to good, and once converted it perseveres in good; the direction of the human will toward good, and after direction its continuation in good, depend solely upon God’s will, not upon any merit of man. Thus there is left to man such free will, if we please so to call it, as he elsewhere describes: that except through grace the will can neither be converted to God nor abide in God; and whatever it can do it is able to do only through grace. “(Augustine, Aurelius. Augustine’s Writings on Grace and Free WIll (Kindle Locations 45-46). Monergism Books. Kindle Edition.)
“And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for “He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens.” And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, who “being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: “What shall we say then?” he says: “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, not of works, but, of future works, and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, God forbid; that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in God’s doing this, and says: “For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” “ (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God’s Free Grace.)
People would be better served being a good person, instead of spending one’s life wondering if you are “Chosen”.
True enlightenment comes when you realize you aren't a good person, and that your best and greatest characteristics or good deeds all fall short.
I’ve seen philosophers try to thread the predestination needle all manner of ways.
Extremes in Calvinism and in Arminianism both end up looking uncommonly like wishes of “Good Luck!” Either “finding yourself saved,” or “keeping yourself saved.” Both these are marked by making worldly deductions from the heavenly premises put forth by the bible.
Both these do not rhyme with the biblical tenor of the character of the Lord.
The Gordian knot “might” be cut by looking at the question of, “for whose sake would you want to be a heavenly person?” If it’s for your sake, then you haven’t gotten God’s love yet. If it’s for God’s sake, then you have. And make no mistake, the goal is to be heavenly. Even though it can’t be completely reached on earth.
This seems to be less about cutting a knot and more about finding something else to focus on.
Please explain, “Finding something else to focus on.”
Is that supposed to be good, or bad?
Although indeed, looking at the question from that viewpoint avoids the “Good Luck!” which violates the command of Christ not to be anxious, and the Old Testament advice not to fret.
If you thoroughly don’t want God’s love, God won’t force it. It would not be love. Both heaven and hell are voluntary participant sports, not spectator sports.
Your post was on "cutting the divide" between Arminianism and Calvinism. It seemed to be a solution to the dilemma. This is not, however, a solution to the dilemma, and, honestly, there can't be one to begin with (if you're searching for a compromise, anyway).
Either the scripture teaches that salvation is all of God, or else human merit really is the deciding factor in salvation.
Let’s try this one one for size: Permission does not equate to merit.
And I believe you are saying “honestly” from a worldly perspective. Of course you cannot factor it from a worldly perspective.
I'm not sure that has any meaning. Are people's decisions disconnected from their nature, their internal conditions? What is the difference between an unbeliever and a believer? Why does one convert and the other does not? To make it easier, let's say they're both basically the same. Two brothers who have largely had the same experiences and sinful nature? What makes them different?
You mean from a "rational" perspective. There are indeed mysteries in the faith, but this is more about laziness or unwillingness than a bonafide mystery. The scripture is far from mysterious on this point.
Well, I could keep on sparring, but I might as well cut to the chase: my bold, firm assertion is that this particular ramification of Calvinism is downright iniquitous. One can’t keep one foot in the biblical commands and another foot on the “question.” The latter will sow doubt — always.
God warned/lamented: “You thought that I was just like you!”
Be careful what you impute to God as “rational.”
"Unfair," maybe, but not wicked:
"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." (Rom 9:13-15)
Your reply reminds me of a gospel tract from the ‘70s, “Do Good People Go To Heaven?” The tract then explained that only people who realize their faults and need of a savior, and who ask God for forgiveness in Jesus’ Name go to Heaven.
People have fretted for some reason for centuries whether or not we are predestined to go to heaven or not. The Truth says we are "given" to the Father and He will not lose one of us. When we are "given" is up for discussion, but Scripture clearly says we were predestined.
Now OTOH, the parable .....
Luk 11:5 And He said to them, "Which of you shall have a friend, and go to him at midnight and say to him, 'Friend, lend me three loaves; Luk 11:6 for a friend of mine has come to me on his journey, and I have nothing to set before him'; Luk 11:7 and he will answer from within and say, 'Do not trouble me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give to you'? Luk 11:8 I say to you, though he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will rise and give him as many as he needs. Luk 11:9 "So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. Luk 11:10 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
These verses speak of a Christian witnessing to a lost brother and the friend is praying to God to give Him 3 loaves, The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. God has shut the door and His children are in bed. However, because the friend asked, He arose and gave him what he wanted. Now was the friend predestined or not? The God of the Bible would know the man would ask, and be ready to grant his prayer of salvation to his friend. Does our God know who will knock and seek? IMO, yes.
Just another example, Noah preached repentance for 75 to 120 years, depending on what you believe, but no one went into the Ark but Noah and family. When Noah entered the Ark, it was 7 days till the rain started. Did anyone go in with him? Did anyone build their own boat to weather the storm? Clearly God either knew no one would come, or He controlled the people that wouldn't come.
One thing to keep in mind while pondering these subjects is, God has NO time. He is the "I Am". He sees the beginning from the end. He knows the hour and minute of your birth and death. Now, does he predestine you, or does He just know the ending? It's the same result either way. He will not destroy the earth until all His children are in heaven with Him. Every last one. He knows who they are. Several verses speak about Jesus not losing one the Father has given Him. He already knows who you are whether you have repented or not. I was 43 when I became born again. Now that I look back, I can see God working in my life when I wasn't even living for Him, even to the point of saving my life when I shouldn't have lived to give me time to repent.
I now ponder if the Holy Spirit is irresistible? If not, what took me so long to repent? I've come to believe He knew when I would come to Him and used circumstances to build my faith the way He wanted it. It's all about Jesus, otherwise we would boast. Even the measure faith we have is a gift from Him. We are empty, dead vessels and everything comes from Him. How could we every think we had anything to do with anything?
I’m saying that the poser of the question — not God — is being iniquitous.
Look, I’m not trying to be unkind here. But after wrestling for decades with this sticky demon and coming to a hard won victory, I don’t want to see it vector through you to more victims, or even for it to bring your witness down, for that matter.
We don’t have explicit visibility into further details of what might be called the divine “policy.” However we do have some very robust hints. For example, the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but all come to repentance.
So, you might ask, why not spell it out in the bible if so? Why not say that all who permit the Lord to love them will be saved? Well, first at the very least, why deny that could be the case? Again, one is assuming that God’s idea of exercise of sovereign power is the same as your or my fallen idea of exercise of sovereign power.
And the “permit” model answers the merit question extremely easily. I could permit Donald Trump to put $1000 in my empty bank account. But unless Donald Trump actually puts $1000 in my empty bank account, it is empty, and any debts I owed would go unpaid. Therefore, my permission does not equate to merit.
Now if Donald Trump, out of extreme generosity, established a policy that all who permitted him to put $1000 in their empty bank accounts would in fact get it... that still does not equate to the merit of any. The merit would be Donald Trump’s.
Now out of pride that someday I might earn that $1000, but forever still without a job, I denied Donald Trump the permission, then I’d never get it.
I believe your discourse has descended into “quarrels about words.”
The stickiness of the question is directly proportional to our pride in our own thinking, and reluctance to accept ALL (not just part) of the divine thinking. How do I know? I’ve been there and done that.
YOU can wallow. I refuse to, however, and beseech that you do not pull others into that wallow.
Oh, and how do we answer the “whom He hardens” question?
Well we might propose that the occupants of hell are, in fact, all hardened.
Now watch what happens in real life when someone offers to reconcile with you, but you choose to refuse that out of your own pride. Does your attitude get softer? No! You will watch its hardness build. How dare that person be so condescending towards your almighty pride! And that will keep up till either the end or you choose to let go of the pride.
“The same sun that melts the butter, hardens the clay.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.