The Reformers and Church Fathers on Nature, Grace, and Choice

Vanity, vanity, everything is vanity | December 29, 2001 | Andrew Reeves (me)

[fortheDeclaration]

Your posts 251 through 255 reveal that, no matter how much we labor to explain Scriptural verities to you, you refuse to understand even the simplest things about what the Calvinist maintains from the Bible or why. It's a predestined mess. Well, I will cheerfully leave you stuck in it. What God does in this regard is His business (2 Timothy 2:26).

Thanks Doc! You speak just like a Catholic (but then your roots are the same aren't they, that nitwit Augustine), no one really understands their heresies either.

I will pop in an out to break up your Calvinist 'lovefests' from time to time.

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

The choice is yours

The 'what' is mine? Come on, you really didn't say that did you? Decisions both reveal character and shape character. The decision to remain filled with the Spirit is what 'conforms' you to the image of Christ. That is why we are told not to 'grieve' or 'quench' the Holy Spirit, since we have a choice in that area. Unless, you are going to tell me that God controls that area of your life also.

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

I don't think a KJV supporter should throw quite so many stones at a man who was so instrumental in the history of the KJV and other sound Reformation bibles. You know, you never have a good word to say of Calvin's huge body of work and his influence in so many areas which has endured for centuries in both religious and political matters. He was a humble learned giant and subsequent history reveals he is the greater man when compared to Luther

He was wrong in his theological approach. Now, what Arminus stated about his commentaries is correct, because in them he stays with the scripture, even where it appears to go against his own theology.

In his Institutes he throws out the Scriptures in order to maintain a philosphical position at its expense. His adherence to Augustine (as well as the rest of the Reformers) kept the Reformation from moving as far as it should in the right direction.

As a Baptist, I have no use for either Augustine nor Calvin or any Reformer when they deviated from Scripture, which was far too often.

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

Not at all. Calvinists recognize the scriptural truth that man is spiritually dead. Natural man is a spiritual corpse, spiritually stillborn. Therefore, he can receive nothing unless God gives it to him first. Corpses don't cooperate. You understand, forthe, that in this sense, a Calvinist or, more simply, those who acknowledge the utter sovereignty of God in the matter of salvation see in the newly regenerate creature a spiritual creation as fresh as Adam himself was, truly a new creation given life by God's own hand? This is not a casual idea.

The 'corpse' analogy is misplaced. In Acts 17:27 Paul states that God gave man the ability to 'seek' after God, how can a corpse seek anythng? Spiritual 'death' means separation from God. It does not mean man cannot make a decison once God reveals the Gospel to him.

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

And then the question why is some ground not "turned over?" It is God's "job" to prepare the soil to receive the seed..(all we do is toss it out).....yet he leaves some ground hardened..unable to receive the seed..

It is not Gods job to prepare the soil. God has given man the ability to choose (an uncause cause). Those who choose not to believe may do so for any number of reasons. They may feel they have to give us something (remember the rich young ruler?), they may still doubt, they may be fear riducule.

It is God's will that none perish, that all men come to Him, that most do not is from their own choice not His. Do you think God loves you or I more then those going to Hell?

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

Someone has called you a Pelagian. I would hasten to say that I do not consider you a Pelagian. It is a pretty deadly insult. But you are no doubt aware that there is a great deal of careless accusation on these threads

Thank you. I just consider the source.

When you deal with Calvinists it is not long before the 'Pelagian-Arminian' name calling start. Arminius was far from Pelagian, holding to a very strong depravity while Pelagious believed man had to sin before he became depraved.

Calvinists have to set everything in the Pelagious/Arminius/Calvinist paradigm in order to maintain the veneer of orthodoxy.

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

Calvinists don't have to re-write the plain wording used by the KJV translators in order to make the passage say what we want, do we?

But you do have to change it to fit Calvinism. A Calvinist would have to read

Few are called but they are chosen

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

Vulgate is a corrupt text. Go to the original Greek (as Luther did) for your most faithful translation. Vulgate contains errors that have gotten passed along. This may be one of them

You are correct that the Vulgate is corrupt. It is corrupt because it comes from a corrupt Greek text, Vaticanus (B). The same Greek text that is the basis of all 'new' translations.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

[fortheDeclaration]

Of course your not! That is the problem. They cannot even define our position correctly

Very funny!!! Isn't that what every cult crys...you are misunderstanding what we really teach!

No, the problem is that you do not want people to really understand what you teach for it makes God a monster!

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

yet they refuse

You got it right there-THEY REFUSE

Why is this so difficult for you to understand (the wicked like being wicked (Ps.10). Satan rejected God did he not? Gee, do you think he had free will.

And before 'doc' brings in his 'song and dance' about 'cause and effect', the final cause in Satan's refusal to serve God is his own will.

Now, the reality is God accepted the fall of Satan so that the service of a Micheal would be given freely and that is pleasing to God. God takes pleasure (now there is a word foreign to Calvinism) in the free response of His creatures.

Now, all Calvinists can think of is glory, but the glory that God receives is accomplishing what pleases Him (Rev.4:11)

Even so,come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

You still don't apprehend our Biblical position. The soil is hard and barren and like a desert precisely becase man has already made his choice: Professing to be wise, we became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we in agreement. When the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us; for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves. Who are you to complain because God is pleased to leave most men to wallow in their hatred for Him? All men everywhere have made their choice. The Bible is crystal clear about this. God, in His infinite grace toward some, has chosen to redeem some of us not for our sakes but for His name's sake. If the Gospel was designed so that it resulted in salvation due to some merit on our part, it would reduce the Gospel to a monstrosity:

If, as you say we all have made out choice (being born into sin) why does not God simply save everyone?

Why are some the 'chosen'and the others left barren? It is God that who is do the choosing is it not? Yes, man has 'free will' but it is only free to choose against God! It can never seek God can it, even if God Himself makes it possible to do so! (Acts.17:27)

The Calvinist view of 'free will' is the monstrosity along with the rest of TULIP

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

It's a predestined mess

Now,thats something I do understand about Calvinism!

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

Well, I will cheerfully leave you stuck in it. What God does in this regard is His business (2 Timothy 2:26).

And Titus 3:10 right back at you!

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

We have a God of Love,and mercy

Not the God of Calvinism! Oh, no. God has made His choice who will spend eternity forever in bliss and the rest to burn forever in the Lake of Fire.

No, the god of John Calvin is not the God of Jn.3:16!. Jn.16:9 states that the reason a person goes to hell is for not believing, not because he was not chosen.

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[fortheDeclaration]

list "we look through a glass darkly" .Doctrine is not the root of our salvation........Jesus Christ is.

The final plank in the Calvinist defense-we cannot understand the workings of God (Deut.29:29)even if they contradict what the Scriptures teach about His love and mercy-let Allah be praised!

So it is we who do not understand what you are saying when your ultimate answer is-we cannot really understand!

Even though it contradicts Scripture, well so, much for Scripture, we have our feelings or philosophical opinions to cling to, those are more important then any scripture.

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Someone has called you a Pelagian. I would hasten to say that I do not consider you a Pelagian. It is a pretty deadly insult. But you are no doubt aware that there is a great deal of careless accusation on these threads. 256 posted on 1/16/02 5:11 AM Pacific by George W. Bush

FWIW, in this case the accusation is probably warranted.

While it would be tempting to avoid the danger of false accusation by simply considering fortheDeclaration to be a "Semi-Pelagian" rather than a full-blown Pelagian, in past tangles with Woody, ftD has gone so far as to deny the omniscient foreknowledge of God in regard to free human choices.

You know the only way your usage would work would be to say God knew the most private thoughts that we would have, one being, who would respond to the Gospel and who would not. - fortheDeclaration

This denial of God's Determinate Foreknowledge places fortheDeclaration well beyond the errors of mere Pelagianism, deep into the fatal error of the Socinian heresy.

The problem with a heretic who denies God's omniscient foreknowledge is that you are no longer debating with a fellow Nicene-creed Christian about the nature of God's relations to Man; you are debating with someone who is fatally confused about the nature of God Himself. Since he apprehends that God's perfect Foreknowledge of Man's choices necessarily implies predestination (for if God sovereignly intended that the Man should make different choices, He could simply create the Man differently in the first place), he has sought to resolve the difficulty in favor of "Man's Will" by denying God's omniscience.

The trouble is, a "god" whose omniscience is denied is not the God of the Bible at all, but a stupid, bumbling little "god" of ftD's own imagining. FortheDeclaration may call his "god" by the name of "Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit", but he might as well call him "Big Guy, Junior and the Spook". He's NOT the God of the Bible, he's just an impotent little Hearth Idol who doesn't know the End from the Beginning.

[George W. Bush]

While it would be tempting to avoid the danger of false accusation by simply considering fortheDeclaration to be a "Semi-Pelagian" rather than a full-blown Pelagian, in past tangles with Woody, ftD has gone so far as to deny the omniscient foreknowledge of God in regard to free human choices.

Actually, I gave this some thought. I can't decide if he belongs in the semi-Pelagian camp. But since that is where I consider the RC church to be, I don't like that.

I've decided he's an ordinary Arminian.

You know the only way your usage would work would be to say God knew the most private thoughts that we would have, one being, who would respond to the Gospel and who would not. - fortheDeclaration

This reminds me of when the Nazarene minister Randy was here and telling us that God used a crystal ball to look into the future and create the prophecy of the Bible and then threw away his crystal ball so He wouldn't violate our free will. Well, he didn't write it exactly that way. But the case is similar. One sees a retreat from obvious Bible truth in order to support the radical free-will position, a view of human history in which the entire point of God's plan was man's choice.

It seems we fight the pro-choicers on all fronts, doesn't it? They ask "What have I decided?" and we ask "What has God ordained?". It's a Great Divide.

I was reading some material by Custance on the history of the period between Augustine and the Reformation, the rise of semi-Pelagianism and such. In some respects, it seems that these classifications are a little bit plastic. And the history of this period has some strange turns, perhaps something that people would enjoy reading more about. I know I did. But the chapter from the Custance book is just too long to post on FR.

Are semi-Pelagian and Arminian essentially interchangable terms? How does one distinguish? Is the difference merely theological or is it salvific (involving fatal error)?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Actually, I gave this some thought. I can't decide if he belongs in the semi-Pelagian camp.... This reminds me of when the Nazarene minister Randy was here and telling us that God used a crystal ball to look into the future and create the prophecy of the Bible and then threw away his crystal ball so He wouldn't violate our free will. Well, he didn't write it exactly that way. But the case is similar. One sees a retreat from obvious Bible truth in order to support the radical free-will position, a view of human history in which the entire point of God's plan was man's choice.

That's pretty much my point. On the one hand, we could argue that Woody over-states his case in calling ftD "Pelagian", seeing as ftD's soteriology probably is the lesser Semi-Pelagian/Arminian error, not full-blown Pelagianism per se (near as I can tell). BUT, on the other hand, ftD's theology is downright Socinian -- which is an even greater error than Pelagianism!! (Well, his Triadology might be trinitarian, sure, but his theology is still essentially Socinian)

I don't remember seeing "Randy's" posts on FR, but taking your summation as a basically-accurate run-down of his views, it illustrates my last post... these guys are making up God as they go along to satisfy the constraints of the humanocentric "It's all about Me!!" theological-construct to which they have already committed.

In other words, God and His incommunicable attributes are pretty much expendable in the cause of Man's Sovereignty.

I was reading some material by Custance on the history of the period between Augustine and the Reformation, the rise of semi-Pelagianism and such. In some respects, it seems that these classifications are a little bit plastic. And the history of this period has some strange turns, perhaps something that people would enjoy reading more about. I know I did. But the chapter from the Custance book is just too long to post on FR. Are semi-Pelagian and Arminian essentially interchangable terms? How does one distinguish? Is the difference merely theological or is it salvific (involving fatal error)?

They can be, and have been, a little "plastic" in application; but if memory serves, Augustine's exhortations towards the "Massilian heretics" (the original "semi-Pelagians") suggested to me that their views were awfully close to the mass of professing Christians whom we would call today by the name, "Arminian". And, again racking my memory (it's been like a year-and-a-half since I last read Augustine's letters to the Massilians), Augustine did regard the Massilians differently than the Pelagians... treating them as badly-confused and potentially divisive Christian heretics, but generally not regarding them as unregenerate blasphemers like (many of) the Pelagians.

HOWEVER, the Massilians did not deny the omniscince of God!! While they glorified Man's Free Will, their position was akin to that of the Arminian "Buggman" on FreeRepublic -- giving a quick-and-dirty retelling of my exchange with Bugg, when I showed Buggman the Chorazin/Bethsaida passage, his response boiled down to "Well, as long as we agree that the Tyrians and Sidonians did have a free and uncompelled choice in the matter, I have no argument with the fact that God in effect 'predestined' their choice by His sovereign control of the conditions and events which inform their free will one way or the other".

That kind of Arminian I believe I can sup with in reasonable fellowship. He's confused about the sheer depth of Man's spiritually-ruinous Fall; and he's probably misunderstood the Calvinist teaching on "Irresistible Grace" (which, as Jerry_M once explained, usually has more in common with the most irresistible cherry-cheesecake ever fixed, than the most irresistible bulldozer [though in Paul's case, Grace was akin to a bulldozer]).... But at least Bugg is willing to let God be God!! At least Bugg admits of real Omniscience and a real sort of absolute Predestination, albeit with different mechanics.

The trouble is, many Arminians these days are not so willing to let God be in charge. They are not merely looking to safeguard their understanding of "Man's Free Will", within the context of Created Time, as is Buggman; they are looking to take God out of the driver's seat altogether -- even denying His absolute Foreknowledge if they have to... which, in order to install Man upon the Throne of Sovereignty, they do.

So while their error might look like just another case of soteriological semi-Pelagianism (the spiritual equivalent of an unhealthy case of pneumonia), if you scratch underneath the surface, you'll find a far more serious case of theological Socinianism (the spiritual equivalent of fatal Pneumonic Plague).

And that's the problem. For many of today's Arminians, their arminianism is not their biggest problem... it is merely a soteriological symptom of a far more serious spiritual cancer, the question of whether God, or Man, shall be acknowledged as Lord.

[George W. Bush]

That's pretty much my point. On the one hand, we could argue that Woody over-states his case in calling ftD "Pelagian", seeing as ftD's soteriology probably is the lesser Semi-Pelagian/Arminian error, not full-blown Pelagianism per se (near as I can tell). BUT, on the other hand, ftD's theology is downright Socinian -- which is an even greater error than Pelagianism!! (Well, his Triadology might be trinitarian, sure, but his theology is still essentially Socinian)

I only made the distinction because I wouldn't call the RC's true Pelagians. They are semi-Pelagian at worst, perhaps tending toward Arminianism for ecumenical purposes. As for Socinianism, I'm not sure that ftD has really said enough in a serious enough way to conclude this. It is possible to overread a person's comments fired off in the haste of doctrinal battle. And ftD and I had our most serious disagreement on the Trinity. Go figure.

I don't remember seeing "Randy's" posts on FR, but taking your summation as a basically-accurate run-down of his views, it illustrates my last post... these guys are making up God as they go along to satisfy the constraints of the humanocentric "It's all about Me!!" theological-construct to which they have already committed.

Randy was rsdillon. Your point is well-taken. An Arminian is truly at the center of the universe and it is his choice by which he merits such placement theologically. A Calvinist is looking at his God at the center of the universe. A major difference.

That kind of Arminian I believe I can sup with in reasonable fellowship. He's confused about the sheer depth of Man's spiritually-ruinous Fall; and he's probably misunderstood the Calvinist teaching on "Irresistible Grace" (which, as Jerry_M once explained, usually has more in common with the most irresistible cherry-cheesecake ever fixed, than the most irresistible bulldozer [though in Paul's case, Grace was akin to a bulldozer]).... But at least Bugg is willing to let God be God!! At least Bugg admits of real Omniscience and a real sort of absolute Predestination, albeit with different mechanics.

Agreed. I had missed Jerry's very apt illustration before so I appreciate your recall of it. A nice presentation.

The trouble is, many Arminians these days are not so willing to let God be in charge. They are not merely looking to safeguard their understanding of "Man's Free Will", within the context of Created Time, as is Buggman; they are looking to take God out of the driver's seat altogether -- even denying His absolute Foreknowledge if they have to... which, in order to install Man upon the Throne of Sovereignty, they do.

So while their error might look like just another case of soteriological semi-Pelagianism (the spiritual equivalent of an unhealthy case of pneumonia), if you scratch underneath the surface, you'll find a far more serious case of theological Socinianism (the spiritual equivalent of fatal Pneumonic Plague).

I just liked quoting that because it was worth repeating. As I said, perhaps we should have a thread sometime on the post-Augustinian period and the predestinarians in it.

And that's the problem. For many of today's Arminians, their arminianism is not their biggest problem... it is merely a soteriological symptom of a far more serious spiritual cancer, the question of whether God, or Man, shall be acknowledged as Lord.

Sovereignty is always the issue. You write of it so well. Hopefully, one of these days you'll recognize that banking is unimportant and devote yourself to professional Christian writing on history and doctrine. Few of us are really capable of it. But you could.