the potter's freedom: the vital issue

antithesis online edition ^ | June 11, 2002 | James White

[sola gracia]

the potter's freedom
the vital issue
james white

 

The Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) was founded by the industry and endeavor of Ignatius of Loyola. This fiery Roman Catholic zealot dedicated his life to the defense of the Roman Church against the "heresies" of the Protestant Reformation. Toward the end of his life he wrote the following:

Seeing the progress which the heretics have made in a short time, spreading the poison of their evil teaching throughout so many countries and peoples, and making use of the verse of the Apostles to describe their progress, And their speech spreadeth like a canker', it would seem that our society [i.e., the Jesuits], having been accepted by Divine Providence among the efficacious means to repair such great damage, should be solicitous to prepare the proper steps, such as are quickly applied and can be widely adopted, thus exerting itself to the utmost of its powers to preserve what is still sound and to restore what has fallen sick of the plague of heresy, especially in the northern nations.

The heretics have made their false theology popular and presented it in a way that is within the capacity of the common people. They preach it to the people and teach it in the schools, and scatter booklets which can be bought and understood by many, and make their influence felt by means of their writings when they cannot do so by their preaching. Their success is largely due to the negligence of those who should have shown some interest; and the bad example and the ignorance of Catholics, especially the clergy, have made such ravages in the vineyard of the Lord.

One of the charges Loyola made to his followers involved the danger of allowing the Protestants to so emphasize the power of God that the "freedom of man" would be eclipsed. One of his followers, Luis de Molina, dedicated many years attempting to fulfill the vision of Loyola. He finally produced an entire philosophical theory of divine knowledge called scientia media (the concept of "middle knowledge"): the idea that God knows what free agents will do given certain circumstances, but their actions are still "free" in the sense that they arc not fixed.

The entire reason why the concept was developed was to "get around" the preaching of the Reformers that emphasized the sovereignty of God, the freedom of God, as ultimate in all things. The "heretics" were preaching that God is the Potter, men are the clay, formed as He wills, not as they will. Such a teaching was devastating to the Roman concept of the Church as the mediator and dispenser of graces. Such a system could speak often of grace as long as that grace was merely a necessary aid but never an efficient power that saves. As long as the ultimate "control" of salvation was kept out of God's bands, all would be well. Sadly, to this very day, nominal "Protestants" embrace Molina's desperate attempt to get around God's freedom.

Loyola was not the first to see the Reformed emphasis upon the freedom of God and the creatureliness of men as a deadly threat to Roman Catholic theology. In fact, the first written debate of the Reformation itself was focused on the very same issue....

CLICK FOR COMPLETE ARTICLE

[sola gracia]

For vigorous discussion

[sola gracia]

BUMP for battle. Once again, let us adorn our battle gear and enter the fray.

[xzins]

the idea that God knows what free agents will do given certain circumstances, but their actions are still "free" in the sense that they arc not fixed.

The entire reason why the concept was developed

If it can be demonstrated that this idea of "free will" far pre-dated the Jesuits, and in fact comes out of the early church Fathers, would you admit that this article is slanted?

In other words, the concept of free-will was not "developed" by "romish" conspiracy. It had been there all along.

[Corin Stormhands]

BUMP for battle. Once again, let us adorn our battle gear and enter the fray.

Ah, how very Klingon-esque. - "Today is a good day to die."

Sorry, your little "Bump for battle" is just proof positive that all you guys are doing is spoiling for a fight.

[Revelation 911]

BUMP for battle

Im with you Cor - who needs an attitude like that - the mindset is predetermined - ....big surprise

[Uri’el-2012]

For vigorous discussion

1 posted on 6/11/02 7:02 AM Mountain by sola gracia

Thank you for the clear clarion call to His Holy Word !

Barukh haba b'Shem Adonai
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord
Y'shua HaMashiach

chuck <truth@Y'shuaHaMashiach>

[winstonchurchill]

Sadly, to this very day, nominal "Protestants" embrace Molina's desperate attempt to get around God's freedom.

Well, actually the leading contemporary proponent of "Molinism", which is the first step from theological determinism (aka Calvinism), is Prof. Freddoso of Notre Dame. The thrust of Molinism is that, while man has a fuller form of freedom of will (than Calvinism allows), there exist so-called "counterfactuals of freedom" which allow God to determine the outcome of history notwithstanding that fuller freedom.

The main motivation, of course, is to negate the big problem of Calvinism, which by having God predestine everything, becomes (rather clearly) the author of evil as well as good. Calvinism allows God to retain minute (or "meticulous") control by limiting its version of the "freedom" of man to "compatibilist" freedom (which is something considerably less than the real thing).

Molinism, on the other hand, as I understand it, attempts to allow real freedom (thereby freeing God of responsibility for evil) but nontheless have God in complete control through the positing of these "counterfactuals of freedom". Of course, the problem is who created the "counterfactuals of freedom", if not God?

But, Molinism is short of "simple foreknowledge" (to which probably the numerical majority of Protestants hold) and, of course, well short of open theism and even further from process theology.

So, if one were to array the five common theological views on a continuum, from determinism (Calvinism) on the one end to process theology on the other end, Molinism would be between Calvinism and simple foreknowledge (which may not be so simple, by the way). But in any event, I am not sure that too many Protestants ('nominal' or otherwise) hold to Molinism.

[winstonchurchill]

Should have pinged you guys on my reply.

[rwfromkansas]

this is going to be a rough thread I think..bump

[sola gracia]

Sorry, your little "Bump for battle" is just proof positive that all you guys are doing is spoiling for a fight.

I'm curious, why do you keep showing up?

[Corin Stormhands]

I'm curious, why do you keep showing up?

Why do you guys always think we have to fight?

[Wrigley]

Why do you consider vigorous debate a fight?

[jude24]

good article, i was considering posting it myself.

[drstevej]

Read the article for this great Spurgeon quote:

There is no attribute of God more comforting to His children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe troubles, they believe that Sovereignty hath ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that Sovereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children of God ought more earnestly to contend than the dominion of their Master over all creation —the kingship of God over all the works of His own hands —the throne of God, and His right to sit upon that throne.

[Corin Stormhands]

I don't.

[fortheDeclaration]

the idea that God knows what free agents will do given certain circumstances, but their actions are still "free" in the sense that they arc not fixed. The entire reason why the concept was developed If it can be demonstrated that this idea of "free will" far pre-dated the Jesuits, and in fact comes out of the early church Fathers, would you admit that this article is slanted? In other words, the concept of free-will was not "developed" by "romish" conspiracy. It had been there all along.

Yes, it is in the Bible!

And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly; thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which He commanded thee: for now would the Lord established thy kingdom upon Israel forever (1Sam.13:13)

Saul could have been the line through which the Messiah came through and not David's. Yet, in Gen.49:9 it is predicated that Judah, not Benjamin would that line.

It was forseen what Saul's choice would be and the kingdom given to the tribe of Judah.

The Bible is full of these possiblities

Ergo, Calvinistic Predestination is a myth.

[winstonchurchill]

There is no attribute of God more comforting to His children than the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty.

But not quite so "comforting" for the vast majority of humanity which is deprived thereby of any opportunity to accept Christ and is therefore assured of damnation. Perhaps that is the reason one seldom encounters a Calvinistic determinist who is convinced he is not one of the 'elect'. "It's good to be the king," isn't it?

[drstevej]

The holiness of God is not very comforting to those in rebellion either. Nor the omniscience and omnipresence of God to those trying to hide.

BTW, I am not the king but it is good that He's the King.

[George W. Bush]

But not quite so "comforting" for the vast majority of humanity which is deprived thereby of any opportunity to accept Christ and is therefore assured of damnation.

I find it difficult to believe that you are unaware that your theology depicts God as both more cruel and more powerless than does most any Calvinist I've read. Unless you believe in some form of universalism, in direct contradiction that only a belief in Christ can save men from hell, then your theology is no less "cruel" than the Calvinism which so arouses your indignation.

Perhaps that is the reason one seldom encounters a Calvinistic determinist who is convinced he is not one of the 'elect'. "It's good to be the king," isn't it?

Turning to Mel Brooks for doctrinal insights, are we?

I'm sure there are some Calvinists who fit your caricature. However, it is not uniform by any means and I can't say I know any who feel quite that certain of their own election. To the contrary, Eternal Security doctrine, very widespread outside Calvinist circles, is no more arrogant from the Arminian standpoint. Strangely enough, a great many Arminians pasionately hate Calvin's doctrines of grace but readily hug Eternal Security to their breasts, thereby demonstrating anew a certain lack of theological rigor. This strange doctrinal stigmatism does not surprise any Calvinist. To the contrary, we expect it.

But let's examine how the Bible describes God using people who will never saved and how the great apostles considered the necessity of safeguarding one's calling and election. One finds the Bible describing Pharaoh as being used by God to demonstrate His power to the nations of the earth. Yet no one supposes for an instant that Pharaoh was saved though he was certainly a part of God's plan and was predestined to those actions. (You probably won't believe it but Calvinists would say that Pharaoh was predestined to those actions but that he acted entirely through his own free will and thereby earned his own damnation.)

One can also read, for instance, the Apostle Paul observe that it would be of no benefit for him to convert multitudes to Christ and yet fail to achieve his own salvation by failing to guard his own faith and conduct.

1 Corinthians 9:27 KJV: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Or look to Peter's remarks on safeguarding one's call and election:

2 Peter 1:10 KJV: Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Obviously, no Calvinist with even the faintest grasp of Bible teachings has any right to claim such certainty of election. God may choose to use anyone for any purpose. God may, I think, even reveal Himself to those who, due to their own failings or indifference, will fail to be saved but will instead serve God's purpose regardless. Just as Pharaoh did rejecting God's demonstrations of power repeatedly, so that God's glory may be demonstrated to the nations. God may reveal Himself but that alone does not save anyone. It should. But it doesn't.

As usual, your deliberate attempt to assassinate the character of all Calvinists falls laughably short of the mark. One would think you would try to occasionally develop a fresh line of argument instead of trotting out your well-worn straw men.

[winstonchurchill]

(You probably won't believe it but Calvinists would say that Pharaoh was predestined to those actions but that he acted entirely through his own free will and thereby earned his own damnation.)

No, I believe it -- but only in Alice-in-Wonderland-speak where 'free will' has unattainable preconditions of 'desire" which the Calvinist model posits he is 'predestined' never to have.

I had a computer on which the parallel port didn't work. When I pulled the box off, i could readily see the external port was there, but it wasn't hooked-up. Now, did my computer have a parallel port or not? Well, it looked like it had one, but since the port couldn't function, it might as well not exist.

My homely analogy demonstrates the determinist definition of 'free will'. It's there (perhaps) but the determinist model purports to insure it can never work by 'preconditioning' it on God's providing or withholding (arbitrarily, of course) the 'desire'. Thus, with this bit of intellectual legerdemain, the determinists can hope to confuse the uninitiated by contending that they can have both determinisim ('predestination') and free will.

One can also read, for instance, the Apostle Paul observe that it would be of no benefit for him to convert multitudes to Christ and yet fail to achieve his own salvation by failing to guard his own faith and conduct. 1 Corinthians 9:27 KJV: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Intriguingly, you have cited one of the verses which show that Paul was not a determinist. If he were a modern Calvinist (there's a oxymoron for you), he could not possibly be one of 'the few, the proud, the elect' and still be in danger of being a castaway.

Or look to Peter's remarks on safeguarding one's call and election: Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:.

Similarly, the Calvinist construct renders Peter's statement non-sensical. First from the determinist view, membership in 'the elect' cannot be affected or effected by any diligence of the believer. Determinism says "You either got it or you don't and there's nothin you can do about it." But the second part of the statement is equally nonsensical from a determinist standpoint. "if you do these things, you will never fall." So if Peter were a Calvinist determinist, why would he ever say "IF"? Under the construct there can never be a contingency of any kind in connection with salvation -- either a contingency as to going into salvation or staying in.

It's time to get that ol' Calvinist shoehorn out and begin twisting and shoving. You brought these verses up, now make them 'fit' your creaky construct. 2 Peter 1:10