Free will and the Early Church Fathers

[PuritanD]

Today @ 06:01 PM
Jaltus:
As for saying Arminians were Pelagian until Wesley, someone truly needs to brush up on their early church fathers.

Hmm, I did not know that Arminus, himself dates back to the time of Origen. It would be a far cry to compare the early church fathers with that of the Arminians of 17th century. Arminius himself came from a Calvinistic background. So are you suggesting that the church fathers were Calvinists then :smile: If I said Pelagianism, I meant semi-pelagianism.

I have created this thread by carving up a copy of freak's "253 in favor to 66 opposed with 41 abstentions."

The information is valuable and I wanted to set it apart in an easily locatable source. The entirety of freak's former thread can still be found (barring that it is prunned at a later date) as I have indicated, this was cut out of a copy.

-geebob

[PuritanD]

Yesterday @ 06:01 PM
Jaltus:

however, you are assuming that when Paul speaks of a work, he means we have no part in our own salvation, but that is not what work means! A deed is something meritorious, and accepting a gift is in no way is a meritorious activity!

Arminians believe it is 99% God, with Him doing the first 99%, but one still must respond (again, Romans 10:9).

Well, from what I understand, in arminianism you have to choose to ask Jesus into your heart or something to that effect to be saved. Yet, that does seem to be a deed that its meritorious worth is salvation. I always thought that in given a gift, it wasn't a choice but that the only response was of gratitude

I don't know if this is the right thread for this but it was that 1% that got Arminians in trouble in the first place. They thought that an indivdual must "chose it." This got them into trouble because they could not figure out how to overcome the sin nature without being semi-pelagianistic in affirming that we do participate (have to work) in obtaining our salvation. It wasn't until Wesley's idea of Previent Grace that the Arminian position could overcome such criticism from Calvinism, though I personally believe it is hard to prove that previent grace can be proven Scripturally. It has been a while since I have read Wesley's works, so I may still be a bit fuzzy on the details.

[Jaltus]

Hmm, I did not know that Arminus, himself dates back to the time of Origen. It would be a far cry to compare the early church fathers with that of the Arminians of 17th century. Arminius himself came from a Calvinistic background. So are you suggesting that the church fathers were Calvinists then :smile: If I said Pelagianism, I meant semi-pelagianism. Yeah, he is a really old guy. :wink: My point was that if one were to anachronistically catagorize the ECFs, they would fit the Arminian mold and reject the Calvinist mold.

I always find it funny that Calvinists say that Arminians aren't saved and yet try to hold up Athanasius as a defender of the faith when Athanasius would fit the Arminian model, not the Calvinist one.

Well, from what I understand, in arminianism you have to choose to ask Jesus into your heart or something to that effect to be saved. Yet, that does seem to be a deed that its meritorious worth is salvation. I always thought that in given a gift, it wasn't a choice but that the only response was of gratitudeWhen you are given a gift, you still have to receive it. One can always refuse a gift, you know.

I don't know if this is the right thread for this but it was that 1% that got Arminians in trouble in the first place. They thought that an indivdual must "chose it." This got them into trouble because they could not figure out how to overcome the sin nature without being semi-pelagianistic in affirming that we do participate (have to work) in obtaining our salvation. It wasn't until Wesley's idea of Previent Grace that the Arminian position could overcome such criticism from Calvinism, though I personally believe it is hard to prove that previent grace can be proven Scripturally. It has been a while since I have read Wesley's works, so I may still be a bit fuzzy on the details. Let me just say that while the words "prevenient grace" may not have been used, the concept was around. As for proving it scripturally, the bigger problem is showing that God has two separate graces, one to save and one not to save, which is what Calvinists hold to.

[GrayPilgrim]

Hey jaltus your wonderful ECF's also held to imppasability (sp?) and I know that you don't so...

[Jaltus]

It is the old "Arminians are newbies, Calvinists have been around since Augustine" junk that I am heading off.

Besides, I doubt I will find anybody who holds the same exact theology I do. You are wrong on one point, Origen did not hold to impassibility, for he said it negated the incarnation.

[PuritanD]

Yesterday @ 11:56 AM
Jaltus:

Yeah, he is a really old guy. :wink: My point was that if one were to anachronistically catagorize the ECFs, they would fit the Arminian mold and reject the Calvinist mold.

I must admit that I am a bit reluctant to try to fit any ECF into modern theological molds. They would hardly fit into our defintion of what Evangelicalism is so why should they fit into any other modern theological terms not derived from the second or third century. Do we know for certain where these men stood on atonement, sovereignty of God, and I would find it hard to believe in any thought or notion about Libertarian Free will? They were to much into asceticism to think that they had such a free will.

Their general writings outside of sermons were generally apologetics against heresy (Athanasius primarily wrote against Arianism), even Eusibus' Ecclesiastical History was written with an Arian twist. Without Pelegius, Augustine would probably not have laid out the "proto-type" frame work for Calvinism.

Even in their sermons, one would have to read all of them unless we take them out of context. It is quite difficult to pigeon hole any of the ECF's. You just have to look at how Calvinists are split on what Calvin says on topics like Limited Atonement to see such dangers [I know that Calvin isn't an ECF but was the best example I could come up with at the time]. Therefore, I think that there is much more work that needs to be done on the ECF's before we can catagorize them into one theological mold or another.

I always find it funny that Calvinists say that Arminians aren't saved and yet try to hold up Athanasius as a defender of the faith when Athanasius would fit the Arminian model, not the Calvinist one.

Now, now, not all Calvinists would say such a thing. We believe the Arminians are in error on how they obtain their salvation, but not on whether they are saved. For God can and does still work through the error of Arminianism :smile: and save their souls. I should know, I use to be one and then I was reintroduced to the great Sovereignty of God
:yipee:

Let me just say that while the words "prevenient grace" may not have been used, the concept was around. As for proving it scripturally, the bigger problem is showing that God has two separate graces, one to save and one not to save, which is what Calvinists hold to.

I think that I will respond in kind... I disagree

PuritanD

[Arminian]

Puritan,

I must admit that I am a bit reluctant to try to fit any ECF into modern theological molds....I would find it hard to believe in any thought or notion about Libertarian Free will? They were to much into asceticism to think that they had such a free will.

Not that I care much, but here........(from AOL message boards):

Justin Martyr (c110-165)

Dialogue cxli: God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and man shall certainly be punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably, but not because God created them so. So if they repent all who wish for it can obtian mercy from God.

Irenaeus of Gaul (c 130-200)

Against Heresies XXXVII: This expression, "How often I would have gathered thy children together, and thow wouldst not," set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free agent from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will towards men is present with Him continually... in man as well as angels, He has placed the power of choice. ..man is possessed of freewill from the beginning, and God is possessed of freewill in whose likeness man was created.

Athenagoras of Athens(2nd century)

Embassy ofr Christians XXIV: Just as with men who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice(for you would not either honor good or punich the bad; unless vice and virtue were in their own power, and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them, and others faithless), so is it among the angels.

Theophilus of Antioch (2nd century)

To Autolycus xxvii: For God with power over Himself made man free, and now God vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthrophy and pity, when men obey Him. For as a man, disobeying, drew death on himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself everlasting life.

Titan of Syria (2nd century)

Address, xi: Why are you "fated" to grasp at things often, and often to die? Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it. Live to God, and by apprehending Him lay aside your old nature. We were not created to die, but we die by our own fault. Our freewill has destroyed us; we who were free have become slaves; we have been sold through sin.

Bardaisan of Syria (c154-222)

Fragments "How is it that God did not so make us that we should not sin in incur condemnation?" - if man had been mande so, he would not have belonged to himself but would have been the instrument of him that moved him... And how, in that case, would a man differ from a harp. on which another plays; of from a ship, with another guides: where the praise and blame reside in the hand of the performer or the sterrsman... they being only instruments made for the use of him whom is hte skill? But God, in His benignity, chose not so to make man; but by freedom He exalted him above many of His creatures.

Clement of Alexandia (c150-215)

Stromata, Bk ii chapter 4: But we who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the infallible criterion of faith, manifesting a willing spirit, since we have chosen life and believe God through His voice.

Tertullian of Carthage (c155-225)

Against Marcion, Book ll chapeter 5: I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating as by this constitution of his nature... you will find that when He puts before man good and evil, life and death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in precepts by God's calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and this on no other ground than that man is free with a will either for obedience or disobedience or resistance.

Origen (c185-254)

De Principiis, Preface: Now it ought to be known that the holy apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed to be necessary for everyone... This also is clearly definded in the teaching of the church that every rational soul is possessed of freewill and volition.

Novatian of Rome (c200-258)

On the trinity, chapter 1: He also placed man at the head of the world, and man, too, made in the image of God, to whom He imparted mind, and reason, and foresight, that he might imitate God.. And when He had given him all things for his service, He will that he alone should be free.

Methodius of Olympus (c260-311)

The Banquet of the Ten Virgins xvi: Now those who decide that man is not possessed of freewill, and affirm that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate... are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.

Arnobius of Sicca (c253-327)

Against Hethen 64: I reply: does not He free all alike who invites alike? or does he thrust back or repel anyone from the kindness of the Supreme who gives to all alike the power of coming to Him? To all, He says, the fountian of life is open, and no one is hindered or kept from drinking. Nay, my opponent says, if God is powerful, nerciful, willing to save us, let Him change our dispositions, and compel us to trust in the Supreme God, but a childish and vail strife in seeking to the the mastery. For what is so unjust as to force ment who are reluctant and unworthy, to reverse their inclination; to impress forcibly on their minds what they are unwilling to receive. and shrink from.

Cyril of Jerusalem (c310-386)

Lecture iv 18: Know also that thou hast a sould self-governed, the noblest work of God that gives it ummortality, a living being rational, imperishable, because of Him that bestowed these gifts; having free power to do what it willeth.

Gregory of Nyssa (c335-395)

On Virginity (3G8) chapter XII: being the image and the likeness of the Power which rules all things, man kept also in the matter of a freewill this likkeness to Him whose will is over all.

Jerome (c347-420)

Letters CXXXIII It is in vain that you misrepresent me and try to convince the ignorant that I condemn freewill. Let him who condemns it be himself condemned. We have been created endowed with freewill; still it is not this which distinguishes us from the brutes. For himan freewill, as I said, depends upon the help of God and needs His aid moment by moment, a thing which you and yours do not chose to admit. Your position is that once a man has freewill he no longer needs the help of God. It is true that freedom of the will brings with it freedom of decision. Still man does not act immediately on his freewill but requires God's aid who Himself needs no aid.

Against the Pelagians, Book 111, 10: But when we are concerned with grace and mercy, freewill is in part void; in part, I say, for so much depends upon it, that we wish and desire, and give assent to the course we choose. But it depends on God whether we have the power in His strength and with His help to perform what we desire, and to bring to effect our toil and effort.

John Chrysostom (347-407)

On Hebrews, Homily 12: All is in God's power, but so that our freewill is not lost... It depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first choose good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our freewill may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help... It is our to choose beforehand and to will, but God's to perfect and bring to the end.

[Jaltus]

Hey, is Cyril's quote from his catechetical lectures?

[Arminian]

Don't know. I'll look it up later today if I get time.

[Arminian]

Hey, is Cyril's quote from his catechetical lectures?

Yes. :read:

[Arminian]

"The pre-Augustinian theological tradition is practically of one voice in asserting freedom of the human will." -- Alister E. McGrath, 1997

[PuritanD]

Those quotes have proven my point. Do we know exactly what they mean by freewill? It is one thing to quote these fathers, yet another to know what they mean. Can we determine that this is not a "limited freewill" as some Calvinist understand?

The quote from Novatian is from its brief context given that man was created with free will which no one I am aware of would disagree with regarding Adam and Eve prior to the Fall. Yet, it does not prove that this man was Arminian.

Even the quote from Methodius of Olympus could possible be stated to refute fatalism of his day. What does he mean by freewill. How does this man see how the sin nature work?

Our problem is not that what was said isn't important. It is that most of their writings are not systematically done but written for a specific time and a purpose. It would be great to systematize the ECF's but I think it would be a very difficult task to do, if not impossible.

Again, it is extremely difficult to prove Arminiansim or Calvinism just from using a few quotes from the EFC's due to the general lack of understanding how they define their own use of the terms which we use today. Though, it may be different from one church father to the next.

What prevents a Calvinist from defining the EFC's use of free will with a definition that would fit Calvinism.

If there is any evidence outside of the mere quotes just given, then it may be better to say that some or if the case is sufficiently made that most ECF's may have leaning toward Arminianism but still I would state that it is hard to prove since the system of Arminianism is not base soley on the term, 'freewill.'

PuritanD

[Jaltus]

Puritan D,

Every scholar I have ever read declares unanimously that the ECFs were extremely close to the view today called Arminianism.

At the very least, since they did not systematize the way we do, they held to LFW, which makes them non-Calvinists.

[geebob]

PuritanD

There are two primary considerations in the modern conception of free will. One is the ability to act or refrain from acting and the other is independence from prior necessitation.

Of course as an open theist, I challenge the consistency of edf'ers in holding to these two,(particularly the first qualification) even amongst the ecf's, but nevertheless, we see both of these concepts present in the quotes that arminians gives.

for both acting and refraining,

Athenagoras of Athens(2nd century)

Embassy ofr Christians XXIV: Just as with men who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice(for you would not either honor good or punich the bad; unless vice and virtue were in their own power, and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them, and others faithless), so is it among the angels.

Tertullian of Carthage (c155-225)

Against Marcion, Book ll chapeter 5: I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating as by this constitution of his nature... you will find that when He puts before man good and evil, life and death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in precepts by God's calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and this on no other ground than that man is free with a will either for obedience or disobedience or resistance.

and independence from necessitation,
Irenaeus of Gaul (c 130-200)

Against Heresies XXXVII: This expression, "How often I would have gathered thy children together, and thow wouldst not," set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free agent from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will towards men is present with Him continually... in man as well as angels, He has placed the power of choice. ..man is possessed of freewill from the beginning, and God is possessed of freewill in whose likeness man was created.

Titan of Syria (2nd century)

Address, xi: Why are you "fated" to grasp at things often, and often to die? Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it. Live to God, and by apprehending Him lay aside your old nature. We were not created to die, but we die by our own fault. Our freewill has destroyed us; we who were free have become slaves; we have been sold through sin.

Bardaisan of Syria (c154-222)

Fragments "How is it that God did not so make us that we should not sin in incur condemnation?" - if man had been mande so, he would not have belonged to himself but would have been the instrument of him that moved him... And how, in that case, would a man differ from a harp. on which another plays; of from a ship, with another guides: where the praise and blame reside in the hand of the performer or the sterrsman... they being only instruments made for the use of him whom is hte skill? But God, in His benignity, chose not so to make man; but by freedom He exalted him above many of His creatures.

Methodius of Olympus (c260-311)

The Banquet of the Ten Virgins xvi: Now those who decide that man is not possessed of freewill, and affirm that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate... are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.


further examination may yeild more consonence with the early church fathers and the modern view of libertarian free will, but I'm too lazy to look at Arminian's quotes closer.

[Arminian]

Can we determine that this is not a "limited freewill" as some Calvinist understand?

I can post more of the context if you like. They are pretty clear. I thought I posted enough, however.

I also quoted McGrath because he is a very famous Calvinist scholar. I can easily give a few dozen quotes from the same ancient authors and others. I have a life, however, and I really don't care for history or philosophy in this context ( I've been an active member of the Society of Christian Philosophers for almost 20 years, so I DO enjoy philosophy, in general.)

[PuritanD]

Arminian,

I think you are missing my point.

First, there are more definitions for "freewill" than LFW that is held by Arminians. I think that it would be a case of overconfidence to think that LFW is all there is in understanding the term "freewill."

Second, church fathers typically wrote in response to defend orthodoxy. For example, most 4th century ECF's were deeply concerned about Christology and spent little if any time or thought on issues regarding how the providence of God and Human freewill interacted with each other. It was not their main concern.

Titan of Syria (2nd century)

Address, xi: Why are you "fated" to grasp at things often, and often to die? Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it. Live to God, and by apprehending Him lay aside your old nature. We were not created to die, but we die by our own fault. Our freewill has destroyed us; we who were free have become slaves; we have been sold through sin.

This quote proves my point. I can easily argue from what is given here that Titan of Syria had a Calvinistic view of Free Will since it seems that we have been sold through sin and have become slaves to sin (total depravity). Total depravity seems to put a dent into LFW, if I recall correctly. Therefore, Titan seems to think we are totally deprived and unable to chose God freely.

Even with the rest of the quotes you used, I can argue that they were talking about Man prior to the Fall.

Here is a quote from a professor on historical Christian doctrine, "The anthropological basis of the Latin-speaking church's view of sin was Tertullian's traducianism. He believed that the human soul in its entirety was not directly given by God, but was passed on via procreation. This in turn means that the human will is not free in the same manner as was Adam's will before the Fall."

He goes on to say in this frame, "Latin writers such as Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, Hilary of Poitiers, and Ambrose, Bishop of Milan carried forth and developed Tertullian's traducianism. In ertain respects they went beyond Tertullian, gradually placing more explicit emphasis on total depravity..."

This would seem to make the Calvinist case for a more compatablistic definition of freewill, especially since these ECF's believed in Total depravity, which doesn't seem to be an Arminian belief.

Who's right here? More important, how can someone provide the necessary evidence to back it up?

With regard to Allister MacGrath, he is a great scholar and a man I deeply respect. I understand that he is Calvinistic in his view but I do not know if he is high or moderate in his beliefs. If he is a high Calvinist, then he is a strong determinist and would never define freewill as a soft determinist would.

Generally, most strong determinist could never use the term "freewill" and when they see it they assume the Arminian position automatically. Generally, if you are a high Calvinist, a person who does not hold to the five points exactly as high Calvinism preceives it then you are an Arminian automatically. You just need to see how us Calvinist beat each othe up over the definition of Limited Atonement if you want proof.

In conclusion, I am not here to prove that the ECF's are Calvinist or Arminian. I am trying to establish that the best we have is uncertainty. For all the scholars that say one way, I am sure if I look I can find another who would see it differently.

You would argue the same way I am if I try to press that the ECF's believed in Total Depravity, right? If not, then this should be interesting in hearing your response to these Latin Fathers who seem to cling to such a notion even before Augustine came to the scene :smile:

PuritanD

[Arminian]

Pur,

I think you are missing my point.

On the contrary, I totally understood your point, but you did not understand mine. Many of the authors listed wrote exhaustively on the topic. Their position cannot be misunderstood. In fact, they argue that your view results in determinism and is, therefore, a heresy. They had the opportunity to split the hair of which you speak, and they not only rejected it, but their theories of metaphysics CLEARLY conflict with your position.

This quote proves my point. I can easily argue from what is given here that Titan of Syria had a Calvinistic view of Free Will since it seems that we have been sold through sin and have become slaves to sin (total depravity).

On the contrary, you missed the point that they are not fated (hence the quotation marks). They are instructed to reject their old nature and live by their new one, which isn't something that the author thinks they have no choice in. His point is that they WERE NOT CREATED TO DIE. Those who have ALREADY become free have become slaves. Think about it.

"The pre-Augustinian theological tradition is practically of one voice in asserting freedom of the human will." -- Alister E. McGrath, 1997

then this should be interesting in hearing your response to these Latin Fathers

Interesting. Who cares about the Latin fathers? Also, total depravity is not the issue, since Arminians don't reject it.

Puritan,

More from Tertullian of Carthage:

Chapter VI.-This Liberty Vindicated in Respect of Its Original Creation; Suitable Also for Exhibiting the Goodness and the Purpose of God. Reward and Punishment Impossible If Man Were Good or Evil Through Necessity and Not Choice.

But although we shall be understood, from our argument, to be only so affirming man's unshackled power over his will, that what happens to him should be laid to his own charge, and not to God's, yet that you may not object, even now, that he ought not to have been so constituted, since his liberty and power of will might turn out to be injurious, I will first of all maintain that he was rightly so constituted, that I may with the greater confidence commend both his actual constitution, and the additional fact of its being worthy of the Divine Being; the cause which led to man's being created with such a constitution being shown to be the better one. Moreover, man thus constituted will be protected by both the goodness of God and by His purpose,80 both of which are always found in concert in our God. For His purpose is no purpose without goodness; nor is His goodness goodness without a purpose, except forsooth in the case of Marcion's god, who is purposelessly81 good, as we have shown.82 Well, then, it was proper that God should be known; it was no doubt83 a good and reasonable84 thing. Proper also was it that there should be something worthy of knowing God. What could be found so worthy as the image and likeness of God? This also was undoubtedly good and reasonable. Therefore it was proper that (he who is) the image and likeness of God should be formed with a free will and a mastery of himself;85 so that this very thing-namely, freedom of will and self-command-might be reckoned as the image and likeness of God in him. For this purpose such an essence86 was adapted87 to man as suited this character,88 even the afflatus of the Deity, Himself free and uncontrolled.89 But if you will take some other view of the case,90 how came it to pass91 that man, when in possession of the whole world, did not above all things reign in self-possession92 -a master over others, a slave to himself? The goodness of God, then, you can learn from His gracious gift93 to man, and His purpose from His disposal of all things.94 At present, let God's goodness alone occupy our attention, that which gave so large a gift to man, even the liberty of his will. God's purpose claims some other opportunity of treatment, offering as it does instruction of like import. Now, God alone is good by nature. For He, who has that which is without beginning, has it not by creation,95 but by nature. Man, however, who exists entirely by creation, having a beginning, along with that beginning obtained the form in which he exists; and thus he is not by nature disposed to good, but by creation, not having it as his own attribute to be good, because, (as we have said, ) it is not by nature, but by creation, that he is disposed to good, according to the appointment of his good Creator, even the Author of all good. In order, therefore, that man might have a goodness of his own,96 bestowed97 on him by God, and there might be henceforth in man a property, and in a certain sense a natural attribute of goodness, there was assigned to him in the constitution of his nature, as a formal witness98 of the goodness which God bestowed upon him, freedom and power of the will, such as should cause good to be performed spontaneously by man, as a property of his own, on the ground that no less than this99 would be required in the matter of a goodness which was to be voluntarily exercised by him, that is to say, by the liberty of his will, without either favour or servility to the constitution of his nature, so that man should be good100 just up to this point,101 if he should display his goodness in accordance with his natural constitution indeed, but still as the result of his will, as a property of his nature; and, by a similar exercise of volition,102 should show himself to be too strong103 in defence against evil also (for even this God, of course, foresaw), being free, and master of himself; because, if he were wanting in this prerogative of self-mastery, so as to perform even good by necessity and not will, he would, in the helplessness of his servitude, become subject to the usurpation of evil, a slave as much to evil as to good. Entire freedom of will, therefore, was conferred upon him in both tendencies; so that, as master of himself, he might constantly encounter good by spontaneous observance of it, and evil by its spontaneous avoidance; because, were man even otherwise circumstanced, it was yet his bounden duty, in the judgment of God, to do justice according to the motions104 of his will regarded, of course, as free. But the reward neither of good nor of evil could be paid to the man who should be found to have been either good or evil through necessity and not choice. In this really lay105 the law which did not exclude, but rather prove, human liberty by a spontaneous rendering of obedience, or a spontaneous commission of iniquity; so patent was the liberty of man's will for either issue. Since, therefore, both the goodness and purpose of God are106 discovered in the gift to man of freedom in his will, it is not right, after ignoring the original definition of goodness and purpose which it was necessary to determine previous to any discussion of the subject, on subsequent facts to presume to say that God ought not in such a way to have formed man, because the issue was other than what was assumed to be107 proper for God. We ought rather,108 after duly considering that it behoved God so to create man, to leave this consideration unimpaired, and to survey the other aspects of the case. It is, no doubt, an easy process for persons who take offence at the fall of man, before they have looked into the facts of his creation, to impute the blame of what happened to the Creator, without any examination of His purpose. To conclude: the goodness of God, then fully considered from the beginning of His works, will be enough to convince us that nothing evil could possibly have come forth from God; and the liberty of man will, after a second thought,109 show us that it alone is chargeable with the fault which itself committed.

Chapter VII.-If God Had Anyhow Checked Man's Liberty, Marcion Would Have Been Ready with Another and Opposite Cavil. Man's Fall Foreseen by God. Provision Made for It Remedially and Consistently with His Truth and Goodness.

By such a conclusion all is reserved110 unimpaired to God; both His natural goodness, and the purposes of His governance and foreknowledge, and the abundance of His power. You ought, however, to deduct from God's attributes both His supreme earnestness of purpose111 and most excellent truth in His whole creation, if you would cease to inquire whether anything could have happened against the will of God. For, while holding this earnestness and truth of the good God, which are indeed112 capable of proof from the rational creation, you will not wonder at the fact that God did not interfere to prevent the occurrence of what He wished not to happen, in order that He might keep from harm what He wished. For, since He had once for all allowed (and, as we have shown, worthily allowed) to man freedom of will and mastery of himself, surely He from His very authority in creation permitted these gifts to be enjoyed: to be enjoyed, too, so far as lay in Himself, according to His own character as God, that is, for good (for who would permit anything hostile to himself? ); and, so far as lay in man, according to the impulses of his liberty (for who does not, when giving anything to any one to enjoy, accompany the gift with a permission to enjoy it with all his heart and will? ). The necessary consequence,113 therefore, was, that God must separate from the liberty which He had once for all bestowed upon man (in other words, keep within Himself), both His foreknowledge and power, through which He might have prevented man's falling into danger when attempting wrongly to enjoy his liberty. Now, if He had interposed, He would have rescinded the liberty of man's will, which He had permitted with set purpose, and in goodness. But, suppose God had interposed; suppose Him to have abrogated man's liberty, by warning him from the tree, and keeping off the subtle serpent from his interview with the woman; would not Marcion then exclaim, What a frivolous, unstable, and faithless Lord, cancelling the gifts He had bestowed! Why did He allow any liberty of will, if He afterwards withdrew it? Why withdraw it after allowing it? Let Him choose where to brand Himself with error, either in His original constitution of man, or in His subsequent abrogation thereof! If He had checked (man's freedom), would He not then seem to have been rather deceived, through want of foresight into the future? But in giving it full scope, who would not say that He did so in ignorance of the issue of things? God, however, did fore-know that man would make a bad use of his created constitution; and yet what can be so worthy of God as His earnestness of purpose, and the truth of His created works, be they what they may? Man must see, if he failed to make the most of114 the good gift he had received, how that he was himself guilty in respect of the law which he did not choose to keep, and not that the Lawgiver was committing a fraud against His own law, by not permitting its injunctions to be fulfilled. Whenever you are inclined to indulge in such censure115 (and it is the most becoming for you) against the Creator, recall gently to your mind in His behalf116 His earnestness, and endurance, and truth, in having given completeness117 to His creatures both as rational and good.

More????

[geebob]

More????

yes please!

[Arminian]

yes please!

I didn't expect that answer. :eek:

[Jaltus]

Hey, where did you get the block quote from?

Do you have the ANF's on CD or something?

[Arminian]

No, there are several sites that have the fathers' complete works on them. Just do a search and you'll find one. The link where I got that one showed up on the top of the list when I did an AOL search. Just put the name of the person you would like to read in the search.

Or you can use a scanner, if you have them on books.

[PuritanD]

03-24-2003 @ 05:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43558#post43558)
Arminian:

On the contrary, I totally understood your point, but you did not understand mine. Many of the authors listed wrote exhaustively on the topic. Their position cannot be misunderstood. In fact, they argue that your view results in determinism and is, therefore, a heresy. They had the opportunity to split the hair of which you speak, and they not only rejected it, but their theories of metaphysics CLEARLY conflict with your position.

I am sorry. I was unaware that determinism was a heresy. Which heresy was it again, Nestorianism, Arianism, Pelageinism...? And if determinism was heretical as you say, then there must have been some "proto-Calvist" writings of the ECF's that you seem to have no desire in quoting, unless you are talking about fatalism.

On the contrary, you missed the point that they are not fated (hence the quotation marks). They are instructed to reject their old nature and live by their new one, which isn't something that the author thinks they have no choice in. His point is that they WERE NOT CREATED TO DIE. Those who have ALREADY become free have become slaves. Think about it.

"The pre-Augustinian theological tradition is practically of one voice in asserting freedom of the human will." -- Alister E. McGrath, 1997

Should we understand "practically" meaning all. Anyways, you can read my last post concerning quotes from McGrath.

Interesting. Who cares about the Latin fathers? Also, total depravity is not the issue, since Arminians don't reject it.

I do not understand the question here. Are we only to look at ECF's that are not Latin. The ECF's are general split in East and Western thought. Eastern thought are general the Greek Fathers who wrote a majority of their work in Greek and the Latin Fathers were from Western thought who wrote in... you guessed it Latin.

I raised TD to express the point that you and I would disagree on the definition of what TD is and how we would see ECF's views on it. I never said that you disagree with it and apologize if it sounded like that.


More????

Well, I thought that I might as well use the ECF's to provide "evidence" for all those EFC Calvinists out there :smile:

Tertullian "We have been predestined by God, before the world was, to appear in the extreme end of the times. And so we are trained by God for the purpose of chastising…the world."

So much for LFW:thumb:

Here is another...

Mark Minucius Feliz "Neither let anyone take comfort from-or apologize for what happens from-fate….For what else is fate than what God has spoken of each one of us? Since He can foresee our constitution, He determines also the fates for us, according to the deserts and the qualities of individual. Thus, in our case, it is not the star under which we are born that is punished. Rather, the particular nature of our disposition is blamed."

Hmmm.... let us have some more in regard to predestination shall we...

Clement of Alexandria "'Twice dead', he says…according to the predestined judgments of God."

I think that will have to do for now. The ultimate question... will Arminian use the exact same arguments that I have been making earlier to discount the quotes above or not?

If so, then my argument has been proven valid. If not, then he will have to figure out a way to get around these "proto-Calvinist" leanings of the ECF's mentioned above.

PuritanD

[Arminian]

Pur,

I am sorry. I was unaware that determinism was a heresy.

I didn't say it was. I said that was their view. In fact, I quoted them saying it.

think that will have to do for now. The ultimate question... will Arminian use the exact same arguments that I have been making earlier to discount the quotes above or not?


Sorry, but I can't comment because you didn't give references so that I could check the context. Perhaps you quoted so little for a reason. I'll wait for you to list chapter and verse.


So far they look very Arminian. Anything based upon God's foreknowledge and foresight will be that way. I need references.

[Arminian]

Pur,

Should we understand "practically" meaning all.

I wouldn't take it to mean that. I don't think anyone has claimed that.

[Arminian]

Tic-tock........... References?

[geebob]

Since He can foresee our constitution, He determines also the fates for us, according to the deserts and the qualities of individual.

this is only believed by practically the vast majority of traditional arminians.

[PuritanD]

Arminian,

Sorry for the delay. I had to retrieve the refernces. Here they are listed by author.

Clement of Alexandria 2.541, 2.573, Tertullian 4.23,
Mark Minucius Feliz 4.195, Methodius 6.343

geebob,
this is only believed by practically the vast majority of traditional arminians.

So... some Calvinist believe that God has determined our fate which is the quote. My point is that you cannot put the ECF's in a nice neat box. They are all over the place.

Here are some more quotes for everyone's viewing pleasure.

When the number is completed which He had predetermined in His own counsel, all those who have been enrolled for life will rise again…So the number of mankind, corresponding to the fore-ordination of God, will be completed. Thereby, they may fully realize the design formed by the Father. Irenaeus 1.411

Our God, one and the same, is also their God. He knows hidden things, and He knows all things before they can come to pass. Irenaeus 1.493

The will and the energy of God is the effective and foreseeing cause of every time, place, and age – and of every nature. Irenaeus 1.569

and another...
He has dispensed His kindness both to Greeks and barbarians, even to those of them who were predestined, and who in due time were called the faithful and elect. Clement of Alexandria 2.524

Though arminians would say that they would agree with all the quotes from Irenaeus except maybe the first. The point is that why should we define the terms in such quotes to an Arminian understanding and not Calvinistic?

It would seem that there was no great synthesizing done by the ECF's regarding free will vs. God's Sovereignty. They just believed in both. Though Origen does the best at this, it still does not seem to prove that he believed in LFW instead of compatibalistic free will (CFW).

PuritanD

[Arminian]

Pruitan,

Your references don't match up to anything I have in books or on the web. I need the name of the document that each author wrote and the chapter. The verse would help, but it's not necessary.

[PuritanD]

Today @ 03:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46760#post46760)
Arminian:
Your references don't match up to anything I have in books or on the web. I need the name of the document that each author wrote and the chapter. The verse would help, but it's not necessary.

I do not know what you are using but for the Clem. of Alex. quote (which I accidentally gave two references, only the last one matters). It symbolizes the second volume of the Ante-Nicene Fathers where Clemet of Alexandria's writings are found and it is page 573. It is there, trust me. I hope that this helps. I do not know what else to say. The first number is the volume while the second number is the page number. They are separated by a period.

Jaltus,

It is a bold statement but not the least unproven. Such a claim that you assert for the EFC's to be LFW is at best trajectory backwards and difficult to uphold. And, are you trying to claim that all ECF's prior to Augustine were Arminian? Who do you think is Armininian? I do not want to get into a numbers game here but I am curios why we are making such blanket statements. For if there were some who might lean that way, that might indicate that there were others who leaned the other way (proto-Calvinsitic).

Anyways, I could simply state that the ECF's were compatabilists and you cannot prove otherwise. Even if some of them had Arminian leanings, it does not automatically equal LFW. So far the quotes I have seen and given, paint a drastically different picture.

PuritanD

[Arminian]

Puritan,

A few short comments on your two quotes below:

Clement of Alexandria "'Twice dead', he says…according to the predestined judgments of God."

He has dispensed His kindness both to Greeks and barbarians, even to those of them who were predestined, and who in due time were called the faithful and elect. Clement of Alexandria 2.524

Both comments are references to God's judgment based upon his foresight. In other words, God foresaw what people would do, and judged them accordingly before they did what he saw them doing. Therefore, they are predestined to reward and punishment according to what God saw their LFW doing.

Clement repeats this theme over and over. I can give a few examples, but here's the one that's in front of me at the moment (2:517):

"For God knows all things -- not those only which exist, but those also which shall be -- and how each thing shall be. And foreseeing the particular movement "He surveys all things, and hears all things," seeing the soul naked within; and possesses from eternity each thing individually. And what applies to theatres, and to the parts of each object, in looking at, looking around, and taking in the whole in one view, applies also to God. For in one glance He views all things together, and each thing by itself; but not all things, by way of primary intent."

Now this "foresight" mentioned above is in reference to what you quoted as "those who in due time would be called the...elect." Why would they be called the "elect" in "due time" if he was making a Calvinist point? On the contrary, this is corporate election language. He is saying that in due time they would JOIN the elect. So who are the "elect"? 2:530:

"For it is now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church. This temple is better for the reception of the greatness of God.."

In other words, God predestined that those he foresaw would believe to be members of his Church: the elect. They weren't elect until they joined. As for his comments concerning freewill, there are so many examples here that it's hard to pick just one. Anyone who reads his writings can't miss his position on the topic. I will post some more examples if you like, but I want to address your other quote.

Your first quote above is incomplete. Here's the complete sentence: "Twice dead' he says: once, namely when they sinned by transgressing, and a second time when delivered up to punishment, according to the predestined judgments of God; inasmuch as it is to be reckoned death, even when each one does not forthwith deserve the inheritance."

Above, Clement is commenting on Jude's condemnation of the wicked. The "second death" is God's predestined judgment for them to be delivered up for punishment. So what is being predestined here is not their behavior, but their punishment for their behavior.

Now to make my point clearer, let's go to the beginning of the section on the same page to see a particular remark he makes:

"For certain men have entered unawares, ungodly men, who had been of old ordained and predestined to judgment of our God;" not that they might become impious, but that, being now impious they were ordained to judgment.

Clement just made a careful distinction that needs to be recognized by the reader. He said that they were not predestined to be wicked, but that by now being wicked they were ordained to that particular predestined judgment.

To sum up Clement's position, God has predestined the elect/poius to glory and the wicked/impoius to judgment. You can join either group to become one of them, regardless of which group you now belong. He sounds like someone I know. :smile:

That's all the time I have, so I'll comment on the rest later. I looked over a few of the quotes in context, and I must say that I have no idea why you understood them the way that you did.

Later,

[Jaltus]

Jaltus, what you say and what you do are two different things. I did not say that you (or any other arminian for that matter) were non-trinitarian creedally, only practically. How in the world can you back this up?

Arminians pray to the Father in the name of the Son for the power of the Holy Spirit.

What part of that is nonTrinitarian? How do you even know what Arminians believe?

I hate it when people make baseless accusations against an entire belief system and systematically show their own ignorance of said system.

[PuritanD]

03-29-2003 @ 05:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47662#post47662)
Arminian:

Both comments are references to God's judgment based upon his foresight. In other words, God foresaw what people would do, and judged them accordingly before they did what he saw them doing. Therefore, they are predestined to reward and punishment according to what God saw their LFW doing.

This is the problem I am speaking about. You just assume that Clement is talking about LFW, which is impossible to prove. You do so on the basis of your own bias towards the LFW understanding.

"For God knows all things -- not those only which exist, but those also which shall be -- and how each thing shall be. And foreseeing the particular movement "He surveys all things, and hears all things," seeing the soul naked within; and possesses from eternity each thing individually. And what applies to theatres, and to the parts of each object, in looking at, looking around, and taking in the whole in one view, applies also to God. For in one glance He views all things together, and each thing by itself; but not all things, by way of primary intent."

Fascinating but it doesn't prove LFW.

In other words, God predestined that those he foresaw would believe to be members of his Church: the elect. They weren't elect until they joined. As for his comments concerning freewill, there are so many examples here that it's hard to pick just one. Anyone who reads his writings can't miss his position on the topic. I will post some more examples if you like, but I want to address your other quote.

Above, Clement is commenting on Jude's condemnation of the wicked. The "second death" is God's predestined judgment for them to be delivered up for punishment. So what is being predestined here is not their behavior, but their punishment for their behavior.

Predestinate ~ foreordained, to appoint beforehand. Now, if you actually believe that this predestination happened after the fact, then it wasn't predestined. :huh: Even if it was because of their wickedness, the term predestination greatly limits your idea of LFW. You cannot have it both ways. If they were predestine to punishment, then they had no real ability to unchoose the choices they made to be destined to eternal punishment. They could not all of a sudden change their mind and psyche God out, could they?

I have never aruged that ECF's never talked about freewill. What I am saying though is that it cannot be proven that they understand freewill as most Arminians believe it to be today.


To sum up Clement's position, God has predestined the elect/poius to glory and the wicked/impoius to judgment. You can join either group to become one of them, regardless of which group you now belong. He sounds like someone I know.

Summing it up, you define all his terms and understanding in the view of your position. Anyways, it seems strange that God predestines someone due to their actions. That is not predestination but simply reaction. Again, LFW argues that you must have the ability to truly undo a decision that you make, if you are predestined at all than you are unable to undo such a decision.

The only way that this would be possible is if God predestined you after you make that choice but then again it isn't LFW since you are unable to undo it unless someone thinks it is possible to trick God. :argh:

By the way, the rate we are going. I think we will be accumulating these quality points awfully quick :rofl:

Later,
PuritanD

[Arminian]

Puritan,

Predestinate ~ foreordained, to appoint beforehand. Now, if you actually believe that this predestination happened after the fact, then it wasn't predestined.

First of all, that's your opinion, but not his. And his opinion is the issue.

Secondly, predestining people to reward or punishment based upon what you know about them does make sense. That is what he was describing.

Summing it up, you define all his terms and understanding in the view of your position. Anyways, it seems strange that God predestines someone due to their actions. That is not predestination but simply reaction. Again, LFW argues that you must have the ability to truly undo a decision that you make, if you are predestined at all than you are unable to undo such a decision

I'm sorry, but I quoted him in context and showed you your error. In fact, I showed him correcting a your potential misunderstanding of what he meant. His writings are dripping with the view that I have described. If all you can say is, "That's what you think!," then I guess the discussion is over.

[Jaltus]

Oh, BTW, "predestining" to the ECFs was based on foreknowledge, according to Origen. He stated that it was a common understanding (from his commentary on Romans, book 7).

[PuritanD]

Today @ 01:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50068#post50068)
Arminian:

First of all, that's your opinion, but not his. And his opinion is the issue.

Are you talking about the definition? If so, I got it from Webster. It wasn't my own opinion.

Secondly, predestining people to reward or punishment based upon what you know about them does make sense. That is what he was describing.

It still does not prove LFW. In fact, I find it hard to support that God predestines us prior to our actual decision and still have it called LFW. The only way that this LFW could work is if the decision you make can be reversed. If God has predestined you, then you cannot reverse such a decision. Those who were predestined to eternal punishment could not make any possible decision to change its course. That is what the EFC was talking about in that quote.

His writings are dripping with the view that I have described. If all you can say is, "That's what you think!," then I guess the discussion is over.

I think that we may have missed the whole discussion here. At one time Jaltus stated that the ECF's prior to Augustine were Arminians. I said that this is impossible to prove (especially LFW)and yet it cannot be done, unless you want to go over every single ECF which again is an impossiblity due to the fact that we do not have all of their writings.

So far, there has been no solid evidence that they believed in LFW the way you define it to be. All that I am saying is that the quotes and context does not dictate LFW. To you, it might, but since we cannot get into their heads we have no idea what they meant by free will. For all we know it could be compatiblistic freewill.

Jaltus,

Here is a different understanding of foreknowledge in Romans 8...

"The NT usage of the verb and its cognate noun does not conform to the general pattern of usage. In the six occurrences of these words in the NT, only tow mean "know beforehand" (Acts 26:5 and 2 Peter 3:17); the three others besides the occurrence in this text, (Rom 11:2. 1 Peter 1:20, Acts 2:23, 1 Pet 1:2) all of which have God as their subject, mean not "know before"- in the sense of intellectual knowledge or cognition - but "enter into relationship with before" or "choose, or determine, before" 2) That the verb here contains this peculiarly biblical sense of 'know' is suggested by the fact that it has a simple personal object. Paul does not say that God knew anything about us but that he knew us, and this is reminiscent of the OT sense of 'know.' " ~ Moo Comm. on Romans

He notes that ginosko in the LXX is used to translate the Hebrew yada when it denotes intimate relationship. This OT relational sense is too well known and widely accepted to require argument.

As I have stated before, even if they had Arminian leanings, this does not qualify that they believe what Arminians do today with regard to LFW.

PuritanD

[Arminian]

Puritan,

Are you talking about the definition? If so, I got it from Webster. It wasn't my own opinion.

The definition of predestination doesn't matter. Its relationship to the other concepts is the issue.

It still does not prove LFW. In fact, I find it hard to support that God predestines us prior to our actual decision and still have it called LFW.

I wasn't trying to prove LFW. I was talking about the perspective of the ECFs, good or bad as they may be. In fact, I differ with them in a number of ways, so there really isn't a huge affection on my part. I was, however, supporting a point that Jaltus had made.

As for being predestined to reward or punishment based upon foreknowledge, yes, it makes a lot of sense.

So far, there has been no solid evidence that they believed in LFW the way you define it to be. All that I am saying is that the quotes and context does not dictate LFW. To you, it might, but since we cannot get into their heads we have no idea what they meant by free will. For all we know it could be compatiblistic freewill.

There's no way to reconcile their views with compatibilism. As I've shown in a number of cases ( and I can do more...), when they think that they could be misunderstood as promoting any type of determinism, they quickly clear up that misunderstanding.

And that's not merely "my opinion," as I have shown.

[PuritanD]

Yesterday @ 09:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50639#post50639)
Arminian:

Puritan,

There's no way to reconcile their views with compatibilism. As I've shown in a number of cases ( and I can do more...), when they think that they could be misunderstood as promoting any type of determinism, they quickly clear up that misunderstanding.

And that's not merely "my opinion," as I have shown.

Well, you will have to give me your definition of what compatabilism is. For we may see it differently and see such differences.

In any case, you would agree that EFC's are not LFW believers then, right?

Just because they were against determinism does not necessitate all determinism for it is more likely that they were combating the harshest form being fatalism since it was a dominate characteristic in Greek philosophy.

PuritanD

[Arminian]

Puritan,

In any case, you would agree that EFC's are not LFW believers then, right?

No, I wouldn't agree. I've demonstrated why already.

[Blake Reas]

I think to be honest, we must say that the Early Church Fathers for whatever reason held to some type of Libertarian Freedom. I also have seen arguments from the Rabbis and Qumran that show they where either deterministic or Compatibilist although I know full well 2nd temple Judaism was very very diverse. I do not think that appeal to either the Rabbis/Qumran or the EFCs help out in this debate unless you are wanting to show the OVers what the early church and the Rabbis believed about foreknowledge and election.
By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[geebob]

This thread which I have carved up was a copy I made of freak's "253 in favor to 66 opposed with 41 abstentions."


The information on the church father's and free will is pretty good and it to have it in it's own little thread.

[Arminian]

Romans and the People of God
by Sven K. Soderlund (Editor), N. T. Wright (Editor)

This book as a Festschrift in honor of Gordon Fee on his 65th birthday. In it there is an article by Barbra Aland (Director, Institut fur Neutestamentliche Textforschung, Munster Germany) named "Trustworthy Preaching: Reflections on John Chrysostom's Interpretation of Romans 8". It directly addresses this issue.

There is also an article by J. I. Packer on Romans 7 which has nothing to do with this topic. It should be torn out and burned.

[geebob]

There is also an article by J. I. Packer on Romans 7 which has nothing to do with this topic. It should be torn out and burned.

I don't know what's in it to make you say such a thing, but I will nevertheless say Amen to that.

[Solly]

If the ECF's prior to Augustine were so firmly "arminian" then how did Augustine get a hearing? I know some did not go with his views, ie John Cassian, but something must have been there for Augustine to build upon, so that it became the foundation of Latin Christianity for centuries to come.

On the extracts from the ECFs: snippets are all well and good - and if I had time I could ransack them for quotes that support my position (or any position you like, they are that confused at times), but one needs comprehensive analysis of their arguments, not phrases that seem to support their position. It's all very well quoting Jerome etc, but the context of the AntiPelagian controversy should be made note of. You will find, in these writers, that for all their talk about FreeWill, they also point out that without God's grace we can do nothing - which is what a Calvinist will say as well. Our (Reformed) beef is with the degraded form of modern arminianism, which is practical pelagianism, that believes that man, with his LFW, is at complete liberty to accept or reject God's grace, prior to any effect of God upon his person, beyond some sort of mental enlightenment, and possible guilty feeling. Arminians who believe in total depravity must at least accept that God has to do something to us - addressing the blindness that is on our minds and the caul on our hearts, that we might understand and move towards him, or your holding to the doctrine of Total Depravity is a nonsense position - because it means nothing. The end result is a pseudo-catholic doctrine where the means of grace are applied - sacramentally or preveniently, we are "set free", and left to make our own decisions whether we will follow Christ or not. The world is then full of these linsey-woolsey people who are neither in or out of the kingdom.

For all his arminianism, CW's "calvinist" hymn is still one of the best:

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

Where is the autonomous free will in this? Only once the bound will has been unloosed can it really be free, and for all his free willism, Wesley knew he could do nothing but follow Christ once it had been set free, like a bird flies into the sky when released from a cage.

Finally, tongue in cheek, I have decided that the LFW doctrine of the "autonomous man" has come about through the influence of greek philosophy and should be rejected, as with classical theism's "God".

[Arminian]

Solly,

You will find, in these writers, that for all their talk about FreeWill, they also point out that without God's grace we can do nothing - which is what a Calvinist will say as well. Our (Reformed) beef is with the degraded form of modern arminianism, which is practical pelagianism, that believes that man, with his LFW, is at complete liberty to accept or reject God's grace, prior to any effect of God upon his person, beyond some sort of mental enlightenment, and possible guilty feeling. Arminians who believe in total depravity must at least accept that God has to do something to us - addressing the blindness that is on our minds and the caul on our hearts, that we might understand and move towards him, or your holding to the doctrine of Total Depravity is a nonsense position - because it means nothing. The end result is a pseudo-catholic doctrine where the means of grace are applied - sacramentally or preveniently, we are "set free", and left to make our own decisions whether we will follow Christ or not. The world is then full of these linsey-woolsey people who are neither in or out of the kingdom.

Well, you're welcome to your beef. But if you need to vent, please find the proper folder. But I know history and creed are a real source of pride for you, so this folder must be a real thorn in the side. Right now you are probably dying to burn an effigy.

If the ECF's prior to Augustine were so firmly "arminian" then how did Augustine get a hearing? I know some did not go with his views, ie John Cassian, but something must have been there for Augustine to build upon, so that it became the foundation of Latin Christianity for centuries to come.

It came from his own personal experience, his need to defend infant baptism, Satan, and a chemical imbalance (just kidding, except for the comments concering his experience and infant baptism.).

Oh, here comes the effigy........

Wesley knew he could do nothing but follow Christ once it had been set free, like a bird flies into the sky when released from a cage.

On the contrary, he didn't reflect upon it that way at all. And the song merely says what he did. It doesn't say "I could do nothing but..." Considering the poetic focus, it's great! (And this has WHAT to do with this folder??)

Finally, tongue in cheek, I have decided that the LFW doctrine of the "autonomous man" has come about through the influence of greek philosophy and should be rejected, as with classical theism's "God".

Thanks for sharing that important information........

[Arminian]

Hey, we need a smilie of a thorn in the side, or a guy twisting a knife.

[seer]

AA Hodge:

"As a general fact it may be stated, that, as a result of the great influence of Origen, the Fathers of the Greek Church pretty unanimously settled down upon a loose Semipelagianism, denying the guilt of original sin, and maintaining the ability of the sinner to predispose himself for, and to cooperate with divine grace."

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/AHODGE1.HTM

Can we find any early church fathers that believed in unconditional election,eternal security, or irresistable grace?

The fact is the doctrines of so called "Sovereign Grace" were unknown in the early church.

[geebob]

If the ECF's prior to Augustine were so firmly "arminian" then how did Augustine get a hearing?..On the extracts from the ECFs: snippets are all well and good

If it is so difficult to establish that the early church fathers believed in free will, then why should we be able to distinguish between early Augustine who believed in free will and later augustine?

Our (Reformed) beef is with the degraded form of modern arminianism, which is practical pelagianism, that believes that man, with his LFW, is at complete liberty to accept or reject God's grace, prior to any effect of God upon his person, beyond some sort of mental enlightenment, and possible guilty feeling.

Although I'd like not to be a party to dragging this thread off topic (I cut tons of off topic posts out to create this thread after all), I would like to highlight that I don't hold such a notion and I don't know many arminians that do. God makes it possible for all men to respond to him. He doesn't make it certain, but he does make it possible.