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

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

[AndrewSshi]

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance,
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.

A planet of playthings,
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
“The stars aren’t aligned-
Or the gods are malign”
Blame is better to give than receive.
…
All preordained-
A prisoner in chains-
A victim of venomous fate.
Kicked in the face,
You can't pray for a place
In Heaven's unearthly estate.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.

--Rush, “Freewill,” ©1980.

When Martin Luther defied a Pope and proclaimed salvation only through the ineffable grace of God, he had no idea that he was rending the body of the ancient church that had for so long known only unity. As his revolution spread, though, all Christendom watched as the Church began to fracture like one of the rose windows smashed by a maddened Swiss mob. Northern Germany, Scandinavia, and a large portion of the Swiss cantons turned away from the faith they had known for centuries, causing no small consternation in a civilization that valued timeless truths above novelty, and which viewed the past as the repository of truth and the present and future as decay. When the reformers were accused by men like Cardinal Sadoleto of pulling away from their faith for the sake of unprecedented novelties, both Luther and Calvin responded that it was their medieval forbears who had introduced devilish novelties into the Church, and that they were merely restoring Christianity to its ancient form (“Reply,” 56).

Such claims and counter claims were absolutely vital in the spirit of those times. For if Christ had indeed left His authority with a body of believers upon his ascension, then any faction claiming to possess the true meaning of His scriptures would logically have to be in agreement with that original body that carried on Christ’s truth after His return to His Father. It is outside of the purview of the discipline of history to ask questions about the existence and nature of God or the supernatural claims of any institution. We can, however, examine the claims of historical continuity by the various parties involved: Were Doctors Luther and Calvin reclaiming an ancient theology obscured by centuries of scholastic decadence, or were they, as their opponents claimed, introducing novelties never before seen under the sun? I intend, through an examination of patristic sources in comparison to Luther and Calvin, to demonstrate that the reformers reclaimed certain Augustinian principles, but in carrying them to their logical extremes, went to lengths that were utterly without precedent.

In examining the Reformation and its dogmas, we must first understand the key fulcrum upon which the reformation turned. This point, though, is often obscured when navigating through a list of secondary issues like use of images, liturgical style, church property, etc. We would do well to note that all of these issues pale besides that which drove the reformers to the lengths they went—“Therefore it is clear that, as the soul needs only the Word of God for its life and righteousness, so it is justified by faith alone and not any works; for if it could be justified by anything else, it would not need the Word, and consequently it would not need faith.” The reformation stands or falls on the basis of the assertion that man is justified before God only through His ineffable grace, by faith alone.

At the outset, this should not seem like too much of a problem. Even the most adamant pre-Vatican II Catholic will acknowledge the corrupt nature of man and inability to approach the righteousness of Christ without divine grace. Why then, did the reformers’ preaching of grace cause such a stir? If we delve below the surface, the problem with sola fide soon becomes apparent. If salvation comes by grace through faith alone, then no works of man can have anything do to with his salvation. If that is the case, then, as Luther tells us, this discounts any act of the will, for if one were to be able to will oneself to believe, faith would simply be a meritorious work (Luther, 135). Calvin reaches a similar conclusion in his Institutes (XXI, 1), and such thinking leaves us with the uncomfortable notion that, if one is to be saved by faith alone, then man, shorn of his free will, is reduced to the role of a puppet dancing on God’s strings. This of course opens up a host of other difficulties, and the perplexed believer is left asking if God in His love also responsible for evil. In the end, the Roman Catholic Church rejected reformed dogma in order to defend the doctrine of man’s freedom (Tracy, 101).

This rejection then left the reformers in the position of standing against the ancient Catholic Church and demanding that they, rather than the ancient church, possessed apostolic truth. Erasmus of Rotterdam had this to say about Luther’s claim to have re-discovered the truth:

Even though Christ’s spirit might permit His people to be in error in an unimportant question on which man’s salvation does not depend, no one would believe that this Spirit has deliberately overlooked error in His church for 1300 years, and that He did not deem one of all the pious and saintly Church Fathers worthy to be inspired, with what, they contend, is the very essence of all evangelical teaching (Erasmus, 19).

Erasmus lays a fairly serious charge at Luther’s feet. The answer, then to the question of whether or not the reformers held views in concord with the ancient church lies in ascertaining Erasmus’s assertion that the denial of free will is completely alien to the historical record of the Church’s teachings.

Since Erasmus felt it meet to bring the Church Fathers into the discussion, I shall begin my examination with patristic sources. I intend first to examine the works of Justin Martyr, a second century convert and one of the first Christian apologists. I intend to examine Justin’s work as a case study for several reasons, chief of which are that his first and second apologies were written both to answer objections to the Christian faith and outline its basic principles, and, if we are looking for a picture of early Christianity as handed down to the apostles, we could do no better than to examine the product of a Church removed from the death of the last apostle by less than a century.

To properly comprehend the early Church’s positions on the freedom of the will, we must first examine the philosophical background of the classical world from which Christianity emerged. We quickly find that, as a general rule, the classical world was hostile to the notion of humanity possessing the free ability to choose. Democritus with his mechanistic view of the cosmos and the Eleatics with their monism both held that all events and choices were under the sway of a deterministic necessity (“Free Will”). Aristotle was a bit more optimistic, allowing for contingency, but then, with his cosmos brought into being by a primum mobile, it is hard to escape the notion that all subsequent causes must be dependent of the first cause (ibid). Nor did the stoics allow for free choice, which was precluded by their pantheistic picture of the universe (ibid). It was against such background that Christianity addressed the issue of man’s freedom.

In Chapters XLIII and XLIV of his Second Apology, Justin examines the question as to whether or not men are free. His conclusion is an unambiguous rejection of the classical world’s determinism. Martyr makes several arguments, one based on a usage of the term “devour” in Isaiah, and another on the dubious notion that Plato learned what he knew from the Hebrew prophets (Martyr, XLIV). We shall pass over these, though, in favor of the much more powerful argument of responsibility. He tells his reader “unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions” (Martyr, XLIII). Justin hammers this point home further in stating that God made man, “not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice” (ibid). For Martyr, the sinner would not be worthy of punishment if his action were not of his own volition, but a result of the condition in which he was made (ibid). He then quotes Deuteronomy 30:15, 19: “Behold before thy face are good and evil: choose the good” (1.2.5).

Augustine in his answer affirmed that man does evil through the use of his free choice (Free Choice, 1.16.35), and that evil comes not from God, but rather from a negation of His goodness, that is, in a man turning from the good that which is God to follow his own desires (ibid, 2.20.54). In agreement with Justin Martyr, he asks rhetorically, “How could a man be punished justly, if he used his will for the very purpose for which it was given” (ibid, 2.1.3)? He goes on to state that to be justly punished, sin must be committed by a free act of the will (ibid).

In this context, when Augustine speaks of the decrees of God, he speaks of God’s predestination as coming through the foreknowledge of His omniscience. Indeed, he goes out of his way to state that foreknowledge is not the same as compulsion (Free Choice, 3.4.10), and states that, simply because God has foreseen an evil does not mean that He is responsible (ibid, 3.4.11). He draws the notion of foreknowledge to its logical conclusion, stating that because God foreknows everything, then events must happen as He has foreseen (ibid, 3.3.8). This appears to satisfactorily wrap up the issue of God’s decrees.

All of the above would seem to create the impression that God’s only action in working out His will is in foreseeing that which will occur and thus working out His will through man’s will. But we must carefully bear in mind that Augustine is speaking of the origins of evil. We have not yet examined what Augustine taught from scripture concerning, not man’s reprobation, but his salvation. When we look to this issue, the picture of Augustine becomes much murkier.

Augustine notes that the first man fell through his own completely free choice. Adam, in Augustine’s thinking, was completely free to choose either good or evil, and opted for evil (Free Choice, 3.24.73). From this point, humanity was enslaved to original sin. The original sin came through free will, but subsequently, though still free, the will was subject to corruption, and thus, unable to rise to salvation. This can be summed up in the statement, “But, though man fell through his own will, he cannot rise through his own will” (ibid, 2.20.54).

At this point in his career, Augustine might have been willing to acknowledge that man can freely look for the grace of God in order to assist him in doing good, stating that man, though subject to concupiscence, nonetheless has the knowledge of God, by whose grace he might rise to a higher state (ibid, 3.19.53). If we were to cease our examination of Augustine here, we would find a ready partisan of Rome, affirming man’s free choice, predestination through foreknowledge, and the ability of man to choose God. Alas, the picture is not that simple.

For at the turn of the fifth century, the notorious heretic Pelagius preached that man in and of himself had the ability to be perfect, and that the fall of Adam, rather than plunging the whole of the human race into sin, served merely as a bad example (Nature and Grace, 9.10). To the dismay of the good Doctor, Pelagius and his followers sought to bolster support for their beliefs with Augustine’s very own writings on free will (Retractions, 1.9.3). Augustine’s response to this heretic’s teachings generated his later writings on the will, predestination, and divine grace.

It must be noted that Augustine’s later writings on original sin and predestination seems to show a markedly different posture from his earlier work on free will. While it has been argued that this hardened stance was due either to his reaction to the fall of Rome or the Pelagian heresy, it is more likely that his own views were gradually evolving under the influence of St. Paul, independent of external circumstances. I base my judgment on Augustine’s quotation of his Retractions in On the Predestination of the Saints:

I indeed labored in defense of the free choice of the human will, but the grace of God conquered, and only thus was I able to arrive at the point where I understood that the Apostle spoke with the clearest truth, “For who singles you out? Or what do you have that you have not received? And if you have received it, why do you glory as if you had not received it” (1 Corinthians 4:7, qtd. in Predestination, 4.8)?

The above taken into account, the later Augustine still believes that those who choose faith in Christ do so of their own free will, but with the important caveat that God has prepared the will of the elect to choose Him (Predestination, 6.11). Under these teachings of Augustine, free will alone is insufficient to believe in Christ, and indeed, if free will is enough for the believer to be saved, then “Christ has died in vain” (Nature and Grace, 40.47). The will of man is both corrupt and inadequate to seek salvation. The elect are not called because they believe, but so that they may believe (Predestination, 17.34). We see Augustine at his most Protestant when he further recounts his own changing views in stating “I said most truly: ‘For just as in those “whom God has chosen,” not works initiate merit, but faith…’ [Emphasis added.] But that merit of faith is also a gift of God…” (Predestination, 3.7) Here, then, the Catholic, to his dismay, sees what seems to be protestant doctrine issuing from the pen of the arch-Catholic.

We will be going too far, though, if we make Augustine a five point Calvinist. We must note that, for starters, when he issued a retraction concerning his first writings on the nature of evil, he stated that free will was inadequate for man to rise to God. He never, though, changed his statement that evil comes only from the free exercise of the will, and never denies that in choosing to do evil, Adam was under no compulsion. When he mentions predestination, he is quite clear that only by God’s predestination can man come to an efficacious and saving faith, but what is striking is that predestination is only mentioned regarding salvation. Those that are condemned do so merely because they follow their own corrupt will, and God justly punishes their evil deeds. Augustine takes his stand for grace and salvation through election, while at the same time avoiding the horror of double predestination.

For the next several centuries, the Church would follow this Augustinian path. The Church rejected the teachings of Pelagius, and a hundred years later at the Council of Orange, issued a series of canons affirming the Augustinian position on grace and predestination. Canon 4 states that if anyone contends that God’s cleansing of man from sin is contingent upon the will then he is in error; Canon 5 states that the beginning of faith itself comes from the grace of God rather than the will of man; Canon 6 states that grace does not depend on the cooperation of man (“Canons of Orange”). As the Church moved on through the centuries, she attempted to carry on in the steps of the African Doctor in straddling the fence between grace and free will. By the beginning of the High Middle Ages, though, the Church was pulling back towards a system that acknowledged the primacy of the human will. By the turn of the twelfth century, St. Anselm of Canterbury wrote in his De Concordia that free choice co-exists with divine grace and cooperates with it (Anselm, 453). With such pronouncements, The Church had arrived at a position specifically condemned by St. Augustine (cf. Letter 225). We shall now examine how well Luther and Calvin succeeded in their attempts to return to his teachings.

Luther would be in perfect concord with Augustine in his affirmation of salvation by grace through faith. In The Bondage of the Will, though, he arrives at Augustine, but then passes him completely, arriving in territory where none have trodden before. Augustine stated that man’s fall came through his choice, and the resulting corruption of human nature resulted in a will that commits sin of its own volition. Luther does the good doctor one better, though, and asserts that the wicked man sins “under the impulse of divine power” (Luther, 130). Luther even challenges Augustine in his definition of free will, stating that, if in a fallen state the will is unable to seek God, then it is not in fact free (ibid, 113), and that Augustine and others who have called such a will free are degrading the very word (ibid, 120). Luther goes to the extreme end of the spectrum, and then beyond the pale, but recognizes and embraces this: “Therefore, we must go to extremes, deny free will altogether, and ascribe everything to God” (ibid, 133)!

Indeed, his statement that a will unable to do good is in fact under compulsion makes fine logical sense, but the end result is a man with no freedom, and one whose evil must be the responsibility of divine omnipotence. Luther here returns to the Augustinian notion that in His omnipotence God allows but does not cause the workings of evil in order to further His divine plan (ibid, 130). It almost seems here that Luther is pulling back from the brink of a precipice to which he has been running headlong, staring into an abyss to which he dare not attempt to apply his own feeble reason. And indeed, though throughout this debate on free will with Erasmus Luther employs the techniques of reason and dialectic, in the end he felt that any attempt to use reason to fathom the mind of God was a fairly silly exercise (ibid, 129). As the reformation continued, though, another figure would arrive who would see no problem in attempting to apply human reason to the workings of the Eternal God, taking every statement on grace, sin, and God’s decrees to their horrifying ends, leaping joyfully into the abyss from which Luther held back. That man was Jean Calvin.

Even the extreme bombast of Luther’s Bondage of the Will does not take the horrific final step in the picture it paints of God’s omnipotence. Like Augustine, Luther admits that since the fall, man has been a slave to sin, but Calvin finally dares to examine from whence came the fall. His conclusion, unlike Augustine’s, is that God actively caused the fall of Adam and the whole human race into sin and damnation as part of His “wonderful plan” (Institutes, XXIII, 7). The ruthless Frenchman then goes on to state that God is nonetheless just in punishing the reprobate (ibid, XXIII, 4). Though this horribly contradicts both Augustine and Justin Martyr’s writings of responsibility, Calvin barely hesitates when he states that he is leaving behind the bulk of the Church’s traditions in favor of his alleged ruthless adherence to scripture (ibid, XXII, 1). Calvin has no problem in that asserting that, since salvation is not by works, then neither is damnation (ibid, XXII, 11), and that the reason for the eternal torment of the vast majority of the human race lies, not in their guilt, but in the arbitrary choice of God.

This horror, then, is the end result of the reformation: God has arbitrarily predestined some to eternal life, and has likewise predestined others to eternal damnation. Calvin then states that certain people might object to this, stating that it makes God a cruel tyrant, to which he responds that since God is both omnipotent and the creator of everything, then all that He decrees, ipso facto, is righteous, good, and just (Institutes, XXIII, 2). He then has the chutzpah to go on and tell the reader that his dogma is not one of absolute might, since God is “free from fault,” and the quintessence of Law and Right (ibid).

Jean Calvin then, has started from Augustine, who among the Church Fathers was most friendly to predestination, and taken the teachings of predestination to their logical extreme, crafting a dogma that would have caused St. Augustine to blanch in horror. Did St. Augustine believe in divine election and predestination of believers? Most assuredly. It was up to Jean Calvin, though, to add double predestination and eliminate Augustine’s free will theodicy in favor of a God who has decreed evil and suffering for his own amusement.

I submit, though, that such questions concerning free will and predestination would inevitably have come to the fore and been the cause of controversy even without Luther and Calvin. The reason for this is that Augustine loomed large over the western Church down through the centuries, and at times there seem to be two Augustines. Why is this the case? The reason that there seem to be two St. Augustines lies in the Bible itself, since there seem to be two St. Pauls*. We have the Paul who tells the believer in Romans Chapter 9 that God prepares some men for eternal life and some for damnation, answering the obvious objection to this with a “Who are you, O man, to talk back to God” (Romans 9:20)? On the other hand, we are also told that there is a loving God who “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). Such contradictions in the Christian faith, then, were present at its inception.

Indeed, such difficulties are inevitable in any faith that attempts to posit a God who is all-powerful, all knowing, and all good. Paul, who likely never intended to be considered a basis for systematic theology, is all over the map when it comes to how to resolve such questions. As such, there is no pat resolution to these seeming contradictions. Perhaps the error of the church was to seek one; Luther is at his best not when he is glorying in the slavery of man, but when he is proclaiming the mercy of Christ.

Works Cited

Anselm of Canterbury, Saint. The Major Works. Eds. Brian Davies and G. R. Evans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Augustine of Hippo, Saint. Four Anti-Pelagian Writings: On Nature and Grace, On the Proceedings of Pelagius, On the Predestination of the Saints, On the Gift of Perseverance. Trans. John A. Mourant and William J. Collinge. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1992.

---. The Problem of Free Choice. Trans. Dom Mark Pontifex. New York: Newman Press, 1955.

The Problem of Free Choice. Appendix. Excerpt from Retractions.

Calvin, Jean. Excerpts from Institutes of the Christian Religion. The Protestant Reformation. Ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1968. 178-221.

---. “Reply to Sadoleto.” A Reformation Debate. Ed. John C. Olin. New York, Fordham University Press, 2000. 43-88.

"The Canons of the Council of Orange.” 529 A.D. Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics.

“Free Will.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Michael Maher. 1909. Transcribed 1999.

Martyr, Justin, Saint. “The Second Apology.” The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Eds. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, LL.D. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1899. 188-194.

Erasmus of Rotterdam. Excerpts from The Free Will. Winter 3-94.

Luther, Martin. Excerpts from The Bondage of the Will. Winter 98-138.

[White Mountain]

Your 301 again:

The question remains ftD..why do two people hear the same gospel and one hear and respond to it and one refuse to hear it? There has to be a cause for that. We would agree anyone that would choose hell, and the lakes fire with intention is "crazy". Who would one make a conscious choice to burn for ever? So there must be something else going on here...

They don't choose hell, of course. They don't think they will be held accountable before God, and have to face what they did (and wouldn't stop doing).

They deceive themselves in thinking that the earth and everything on it just happened by itself -- big bang, random collisions, natural selection -- and will stay this way until an asteroid hits or the Sun begins to burn out or nuclear holocaust or alien invasion. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. They think there is no Second Coming to worry about, no Judgment Day, no heaven or hell, no God or devil. Technology will save mankind through genetic engineering and interstellar travel.

Those who believe in God a little bit can figure that He is either dead or off on a long, leisurely fishing trip, never to return and hold us accountable before Him.

The truth is, of course, that we will stand before God, and every scene of our lives will pass before our eyes. We will know how the other people felt, and what they were thinking. We will see the ripple effect of our good deeds and our bad ones into other lives. We will probably judge ourselves more harshly than anyone. The things we have truly and properly repented of, however, will not be held against us, because of the Atonement of Christ.

[White Mountain]

And I do like cherry-cheesecake.

Me too.

[fortheDeclaration]

O.P. read it easily enough and seemed to grasp my meaning.

Yes, OP did grasp the meaning he wanted to, that you were agreeing with him.

Yea, I held the orthodox position that Jesus Christ was begotten in time (Jn.1:18, 1Jn.4:9)as found in the King James Bible. You went running to the corrupt NASB, for the corrupt reading-'begotten god' in Jn.1:18. That is the reading Calvin held to, as do the JW's. So you have two Gods, a unbegotten one and a begotten one.

You said that after speaking about me being a Socinan, 'we did have our biggest disagreement about the Trinity'-was I rejecting it?

As I recall it, you seem to claim a certainty on certain things about the Trinity that I couldn't find supported in scripture.

The issue is that you a TR man ran to the Critical text reading when the King James contradicted what Calvin had held

I wish you well of your view on the matter. But I don't intend to revist the Trinity with you. There would be no point in it obviously.

Amen

Calvinism is arrogrance to the nth degree.Just listening to 'doc' 'willy' 'OP' and 'Jerry" is evidence of that. Pompus windbags all. ( I say that with charity of course) Of course. Who would think otherwise? It is still irresistible! Moreover, it is still slective. Finally, if it is a delicious cherry-cheesecake-why do you have make them take it? It is amazing what you guys get away by just talking among yourselves. No wonder you like it so much. I was just complimenting an analogy. And I do like cherry-cheesecake.

Who doesn't. But the analogy is absurd.

The real problem with the radical free-will positioni is that it fails to account for many many events in the Bible and in the early Church.

The real problem with Univeralism (which is what Arminiasm drifts to) is that they do not take in account God desire for His creatures to love him freely also. They figure that God will save everyone because of His love, but God will not because He will not force anyone to be with Him either way- a select group of 'elect' or 'everyone'. Regarding 'foreknowledge' those who reject Omniscience do so because they get caught on the fact that God must ordain everything to happen. They cannot understand how free will can be known from the past, so they insist God must react to on the spot decision which is non-Scriptural also. God knows the end from the beginning and has factored in free will, allowing it to operate within a limited sphere. Man's wrath does not alter God's Plan. Calvinists are terrified of free will thinking that God cannot handle it, that it 'dishonors' Him. How is that, if everything He wants gets accomplished?

I don't think you can explain them using your primary principle that man's purpose in Creation is to choose to love His creator. As I've said before, we can more easily explain your all's and whosoever's than you can explain all those predestination's and instances where God was indifferent to man's choices and will.

Are you kidding? No one has explained any 'all' or 'whosoever'. The only way they get around it is by twisting the English language around. (Well, in Rom 3:28 the 'all' means everyone, but in 1Jn.2:2 that 'all' is only the elect.) No, I can explain my view better because you still can't explain the Fall of either Satan or Adam, who had free will, so the Total Depravity will not wash.

Also, the idea that we cannot seek God, when God says we can (Acts.17:27). Calvinists translate Rom:3:11 as there is none that can seek God when it states that there are none that seeketh God. That doesn't mean man cannot, but that He does not! God must therefore seek him. Which He does. Man is thereby able to respond to that offer once he understands it (2Cor.4:6)

In fact,Predestination does not even have to do with salvation, but where one is in the Plan of God.

At any rate, if you're asking me to apologize for rejecting the notion that you've clearly and systematically expressed two deadly heresies and then furthered my offense to you by placing you squarely into the Reformation camp (on the non-Calvinist side), that isn't going to happen.

Hey, thats not where it stopped. Had you stopped at Arminius, I would have said fine. I would have told you were I disagreed with him, but in terms of the Calvinist/Arminius debate I could see being placed there. OP went on however, and stated how when you scratch a Arminian you get a Peligian/Socinian. That is typical of Calvinist heresy hunting. Unable to really attack Arminus, they have to link him to two real heretics and then discount everything that the so-called Arminian is saying.

I think that was and is a correct classification of your general stance given what you've written unambiguously and at length. I don't agree with your positions but I don't consider them a matter of fatal heresy. In such an instance of disagreement, I think we are compelled to remember Paul's admonition to Timothy to avoid profitless dispute.

I agree, but OP, using Woody (who tried this on me before) is using slander. Let him post the entire post rather then two lines. "thou shalt not bear false witness'(Rom.13:8) ( a verse missing from New Age Versions, so he might not know it).

Even so, come Lord Jesus

[George W. Bush]

Well, whatever. I just said I didn't think you had made statements of deadly heresy, espeically not in an unambiguous way and expressed at length. I read the remainder of O.P's writings as applying generally to others, not to you.

Had you stopped at Arminius, I would have said fine. I would have told you were I disagreed with him, but in terms of the Calvinist/Arminius debate I could see being placed there.

If you're not generally Arminian, then how do you classify your general theology? I suspect that you'll tell me that you're just a Bible-believer. But since all sorts make that claim to not having and doctrine but the Bible, that is pretty disingenuous. I think the other alternative in modern times is the semi-Pelagianism of the church of Rome. And, as I said when this started, I don't think your theology belongs with them either. So, are you an Arniminan in general or are you something else?

[George W. Bush]

And I do like cherry-cheesecake.

Me too.

Careful. I've read somewhere that most Calvinists were fond of cherry cheesecake all their lives, even before affirming Calvinist doctrine. You might be in trouble here.

[Delta-Boudreaux]

reference bump

[CCWoody]

Spurgeon, it seems to me, has a much different approach.

Spurgeon:

HO is this gentleman? You guess him to be a Romish priest; and so indeed he is, but he is not honest enough to avow it. This, with the exception of the face, is a correct representation of a clerical gentleman, well known in the South of England, as a notorious clergyman of that religious association, which is commonly, but erroneously, called "The Church of England." We can assure the reader that our artist has faithfully given the robes and other paraphernalia with which this person makes a guy of himself. We beg to ask, what difference there is between this style and the genuine Popish cut? We might surely quite as well have a bona fide priest at once, with all the certificates of the Vatican! There seems to be an unlimited license for papistical persons to do as they please in the Anglican Establishment. How long are these abominations to be borne with, and how far are they yet to be carried?

Protestant Dissenters, how can you so often truckle to a Church which is assuming the rags of the old harlot more and more openly every day? Alliance with true believers is one thing, but union with a Popish sect is quite another. Be not ye partakers with them. Protestantism owed much to you in past ages, will you not now raise your voice and show the ignorant and the priest-ridden the tendencies of all these mummeries, and the detestable errors of the Romish Church and of its Anglican sister.

Evangelical Churchmen, lovers of the Lord Jesus, how long will you remain in alliance with the defilements of High Churchism? You are mainly responsible for all the Popery of your Church, for you are its salt and its stay. Your brethren in Christ cannot but wonder how it is that you can remain where you are. You know better. You are children of light, and yet you aid and abet a system by which darkness is scattered all over the land. Beware, lest you be found in union with Antichrist, when the Lord cometh in his glory. What a future would be yours if you would shake yourselves from your alliance with Papists and semi-Papists. Come out for Christ's sake. Be ye separate, touch not the unclean thing!

Were I as a Protestant to again assume all the errors of Rome again, I should return to her as I am saying that I was wrong to have left her in the first place. The RC is full of the errors of Arminianism and Pelagianism and all kinds of other "interesting" things just exactly like a vast number of Protestant churches. They need to return in body as they have already returned in spirit.

[CCWoody]

Calvinism is arrogrance to the nth degree.Just listening to 'doc' 'willy' 'OP' and 'Jerry" is evidence of that. Pompus windbags all. ( I say that with charity ofcourse) - forthedeclaration

I guess I must be 'willy'!

[NATE4"ONE NATION"]

The issue is that you a TR man ran to the Critical text reading when the King James contradicted what Calvin had held.

I do not know what Calvin held other than a few basics. I do not read his writings, but the Word clearly defines election. Faith as a granted gift in the first place. You can not support ANY free will argument with text from scripture.
It is all made up out of the reasoning of man saying "that can't be right" or "that ain't fair!"
These thoughts do not override to the text itself.

King James Version.

One of the worst translations filled with holes and confusing language.
Thank God for ther Revised Standard and "Strongs Concordance."

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I see you are having a lot of fun dissecting ftD's views and labeling them one sort of heresy or another.

Sure, "great fun". Sorta like shoveling manure out of a barn is "great fun".

I would here observe that ftD, like the other non-Calvinists, is too polite to return the accusation, which is greatly to his and their credit.

Mm, hmm.

I believe I have seen that statement written some where else. Old 'OP' wouldn't be quoting someone without giving him credit would he? As for the statement itself it is meaningless.
If you scratch a Calvinist underneath you will find a self-righteous pharisee pretending to be a Christian. See how simple that is, no theological mumbo jumbo.
Even so, come Lord Jesus
316 posted on 1/18/02 12:27 AM Pacific by fortheDeclaration

Well, just great; now ftD has to go and make you look silly with your haughty declamations of the "politeness" of your pack of anti-Calvinists.

Not to add insult to injury, but I'll point out that I am identifying ftD's doctrine as heretical, whereas ftD is attacking my person as intellectually dishonest and pharisaical.

Nice crowd you run with, huh.

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. ~~ Now really, do the Arminians consider that a fair statement of Arminianism? Recall how anxious, indeed determined, you are that Calvin's views be presented fairly. 310 posted on 1/17/02 11:30 PM Pacific by White Mountain

I would consider a fair statement of Arminianism, to be one which accurately reflected the doctrines of James Arminius (gee, whouldathunkit).

Trouble is, many modern self-professed "arminians" ARE NOT really adherents of James Arminius at all. Their soteriology is similar, but their core theology is radically different (and far more heretical). Many are, in fact, "openness" Socinian heretics as concerns the Absolute Foreknowledge of God.

Of course, as you are an adherent of one of the Great Modern Heresies yourself (that is, mormonism), which teaches the fatal heresy that "God Himself is ever progressing upward in knowledge, wisdom, and power" (Journal of Discourses,V.1, p.93; V. 6,p.120), a Christian cannot look to you as either an authority or an arbiter of questions such as this. Instead, we must urge you to repent of your Mormonism, so that you can be Saved.

Repent.

[CCWoody]

Of course, as you are an adherent of one of the Great Modern Heresies yourself (that is, mormonism), which teaches the fatal heresy that "God Himself is ever progressing upward in knowledge, wisdom, and power" (Journal of Discourses,V.1, p.93; V. 6,p.120)

Not that this suprises me in the least given what I do know about your beliefs but I'd like to hear your comments on this and how you "slaughter" Bible verses to make this "fit".

[RnMomof7]

And I do like cherry-cheesecake.

Me too.

Me thee....now WM if we could just get you to look at the doctrine of the trinity,we will have even more agreement :>)

[RnMomof7]

there are none that seeketh God.

What is the cause of that ftD? Why do some understand the true threat of hell and others not? What is the difference?

[RnMomof7]

Careful. I've read somewhere that most Calvinists were fond of cherry cheesecake all their lives, even before affirming Calvinist doctrine. You might be in trouble here.

Really...you mean that was preordained..*grin*. You should have told me that last year...

[RnMomof7]

I guess I must be 'willy'!

Did Opie have a brother? Or perhaps you are sleepys and docs cohort

" Ho Ho Ho it's off to work we go..." Yep thats it willy...

[L,TOWM]

Bookmark bump.

[George W. Bush]

Answering a question to someone else: I attend a Baptist church, and I am fairly happy with their doctrine. Baptists have generally considered themselves neither arminian or calvinist. Remember, it wasn't their 'denomination' this "debate" came out of in the first place, anyway. There was a great deal of Calvinism in early Baptist history. Let me just name two: John Gill and Charles Spurgeon. This strain of Baptist was known as a Particular Baptist as opposed to a General Baptist. The doctrine was what a classic Calvinist calls Limited Atonement. A Particular Baptist believed in Particular Atonement, a General Baptist believed in a General Atonement.

Marxists have always made a lot of use out of the dieletical method. Set up two sides, and argue from both. You must be either on one side or the other. This is a logical fallacy that has caused a lot of harm. It has no place in the True Church of Chist.

Well, comrade, there are a lot of people who like to believe that they are "just Bible-believers". In fact, one finds that, inasmuch as they have internally consistent views on historically problematic scripture, that Bible-believers separate pretty readily into Calvinist and Arminian camps.

The basic issue is: is man totally depraved or is he born with some mearsure of grace, does God predestine man or does man choose salvation, did Christ die for all men or only for His own, is God's grace irresistible or can a man refuse, is a saved person eternally secure in his salvation or can he lose it. This is the TULIP. Of the five doctrines, one can say that Limited Atonement is perhaps not a necessary item to include in TULIP for a discussion of the issue of sovereignty. This is why one sees a great many 4-point Calvinist churches among Baptists and have taken the Amyrauldian position of General Atonement. A true five-point Calvinist is often known as a Reformed Baptist.

You'll find people who are strongly Calvinist or Arminian who never have heard these terms. However, almost anyone with formal training like ftD or any diligent Bible student (like you I suspect) is going to know these terms and they will also know themselves to stand in either one camp or the other.

The key criteria by which we can separate the Calvinists from the Arminians is this: does man play any role in securing salvation? If you believe that man plays any role whatsoever, then you are some variety of Arminian. It's that simple.

You stated above that I'm being Marxist for suggesting that there are only two views on this matter. I'm afraid there are actually only two views. Either the final decision is God's or it is man's. Perhaps you could explain who else might make the significant choice in salvation if you have another candidate. If you are a Bible believer, the only other candidates are: angels, demons, Lucifer. And no scripture supports any of these possible candidates.

If you still think there is a third choice, then please explain.