Early church fathers and free will

[Andy T.]

All due respects, AndyT, if we are to reject something or the other such as a soteriology because the one holding to that soteriology has a different view on baptism, shouldn't we also reject the Calvinist position since Calvin and other Calvinists of the past, held to something which we perceive to be unscriptural baptism ?

Forgive me if I did not represent what you were saying correctly.

You misunderstood me - I was being rhetorical. Winman and Co. suggested that since the ECF believed in libertarian free will, and they were not that far removed from the apostles teaching, then libertarian free will must be true. It is a genetic argument, essentially. So I simply pointed out that if we use that reasoning, then we must conclude that the ECF were also right on baptism (or fill-in-the-blank of any other doctrine). Thus, it shows the weakness of the genetic argument - you can't pick and choose which of the ECF doctrines you think are right, since you've already established that the certain doctrine A must be true if the ECF held it - you must then believe the ECF were right on all doctrines.

 

[Andy T.]

A quote from THE Church Father:

"no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. "

LOL.

:thumbs:

 

[Winman]

I don't know - when I read that larger portion you posted from John C., I still see the principle being taught that we must take the first step. Granted, he says once we take that first step, God does the heavy lifting, so to speak, but it seems that he thinks that first step is completely our own, which I think is Pelagian (albeit, maybe a soft form of it).

I want to make it clear that I have never believed that man could or would believe in the true God without God's grace. Where we differ is that I believe God gave us the scriptures, his Holy Word, that is the foundation and origin of all faith. Without the scriptures, none of us would know of the true God and Jesus Christ, we would all be out worshipping idols as heathens do who have never heard the word of God. But nowhere in the scriptures is it even hinted at that unregenerate man does not have the ability to believe God's word once he hears it.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Rom 17:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Paul, the greatest church father and theolgian other than Jesus himself spoke of how faith is obtained in Romans 10 and absolutely failed to mention that man must be regenerated by the Spirit to believe. He said only that a man must hear the word of God. A Calvinist would have to believe that Paul was very careless in failing to mention this if their doctrine is true. I find that impossible to believe. And not only did Paul fail to mention it here, he did not mention it anywhere in scriptures. For over 400 years non-Cals have been asking Cals to show even one verse from scripture that proves that a man must be regenerated to have the ability to believe and have never been able to. This is a man-made invention not found in the scriptures, originating with Augustine a Catholic who introduced many errors and picked up on by Calvin.

 

[Havensdad]

This is several times you and others have falsely accused me of "chopping up" or editing material so that it misrepresents the entire document, and once again I am going to show you wrong. Here is where I got those quotes. Now, if the author of this page (who I disagree with on several points of doctrine) cut them up, I have nothing to do with that. I was simply looking for these quotes which I had seen online before.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/church_fathers_and_free_will.html

I actually found this page by googling "early church fathers believed in free will" because I already knew that the vast majority of early church fathers did not believe as Calvin or Augustine and believed the unregenerate man had the ability to believe and express faith in God which is absolutely true. You cannot change history just to make it support Calvinism.

Augustine introduced much error to the church and Calvin picked up from him. There is an interesting article on Augustine worth reading there, for one thing he did not even know the original languages that so many here put so much stock in and rely upon his translations.

Brother,

If you would actually read Ireneaeus, you would find that his idea of free will, and your idea of free will, are two completely different things. He taught "free will" as an infralapsarian Calvinist might teach it today. He, for example, wrote the following:

" Hence having completed the number which he before determined with himself, all those who are written, or ordained unto life, shall rise again, having their own bodies, souls, and spirits, in which they pleased God; but those who are deserving of punishment shall go into it, having also their own souls and bodies in which they departed from the grace of God."

The issue is not so cut and dry as you would like to present it. Simply citing someone as saying "God gave men free will" does not prove anything. Calvin himself stated this!

Also: you must take into account, the fact that the cannon was not yet completed at this time. Many of these fathers had the OT, plus one or two scrolls of NT books (Maybe a particular person had a copy of Matthew and 1 john), plus, many of those you quote, also quoted pseudopigraphal works as scripture.

 

[Skandelon]

You misunderstood me - I was being rhetorical. Winman and Co. suggested that since the ECF believed in libertarian free will, and they were not that far removed from the apostles teaching, then libertarian free will must be true.

Untrue. In fact I went out of my way to state, "These men are in no way infallible and these quotes prove nothing definitive about this debate."

We were simply showing that Augustine was the first to teach a "Calvinistic" interpretation and that other respectable CF did support our views. And just as a reminder, I have never met ANYONE who thinks we can be saved without some sort of "divine aid," so please stop pinning that on us as if its our view. Thank you.

 

[Aaron]

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#5

CHAPTER 1. OF PREDESTINATION
Introduction
SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus
SECTION 2. - Ignatius
SECTION 3. - Justin
SECTION 4. - Minutius Felix
SECTION 5. - Irenaeus
SECTION 6. - Clemens Alexandrinus
SECTION 7. - Tertullian
SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus
SECTION 9. - Caecillius Thascius Cyprianus
SECTION 10. - Novatianus
SECTION 11. - Athanasius
SECTION 12. - Hilarius Pictaviensis
SECTION 13. - Basilius Caesariensis
SECTION 14. - Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus
SECTION 15. - Gregorius Nazianzenus
SECTION 16. - Hilarius Diaconus
SECTION 17. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis
SECTION 18. - Joannes Chrysostomus
SECTION 19. - Hieronymus

CHAPTER 3. OF ORIGINAL SIN, THE IMPOTENCE OF MAN’S FREE WILL, ETC.
Introduction
SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus
SECTION 2. - Barnabas
SECTION 3. - Ignatius
SECTION 4. - Justin
SECTION 5. - Irenaeus
SECTION 6. - Clemens Alexandrinus
SECTION 7. - Tertullian
SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus
SECTION 9. - Gregorius Neocaesariensis
SECTION 10. - Cyprian
SECTION 11. - Arnobius
SECTION 12. - Lactantius
SECTION 13. - Eusebius Caesariensis
SECTION 14. - Macarius Egyptius
SECTION 15. - Athanasius
SECTION 16. - Hilarius Pietaviensis
SECTION 17. - Victorinus Afer
SECTION 18. - Optatus Milevitanus
SECTION 19. - Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus
SECTION 20. - Basilius Caesariensis
SECTION 21. - Gregorius Nazianzenus
SECTION 22. - Gregorius Nyssenus
SECTION 23. - Hilarius Diaconus
SECTION 24. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis
SECTION 25. - Epiphanius
SECTION 26. - Marcus Eremita
SECTION 27. - Joannes Chrysostomus
SECTION 28. - Hieronymus

 

[Skandelon]

Brother,

If you would actually read Ireneaeus, you would find that his idea of free will, and your idea of free will, are two completely different things. He taught "free will" as an infralapsarian Calvinist might teach it today. He, for example, wrote the following:

" Hence having completed the number which he before determined with himself, all those who are written, or ordained unto life, shall rise again, having their own bodies, souls, and spirits, in which they pleased God; but those who are deserving of punishment shall go into it, having also their own souls and bodies in which they departed from the grace of God."

The issue is not so cut and dry as you would like to present it. Simply citing someone as saying "God gave men free will" does not prove anything. Calvin himself stated this!

Also: you must take into account, the fact that the cannon was not yet completed at this time. Many of these fathers had the OT, plus one or two scrolls of NT books (Maybe a particular person had a copy of Matthew and 1 john), plus, many of those you quote, also quoted pseudopigraphal works as scripture.

I'm not arguing with you on this, just want to do some research on the subject. Where is this quote for Ireneaeus found? I'd like to study its context. Thanks

 

[pinoybaptist]

You misunderstood me - I was being rhetorical. Winman and Co. suggested that since the ECF believed in libertarian free will, and they were not that far removed from the apostles teaching, then libertarian free will must be true. It is a genetic argument, essentially. So I simply pointed out that if we use that reasoning, then we must conclude that the ECF were also right on baptism (or fill-in-the-blank of any other doctrine). Thus, it shows the weakness of the genetic argument - you can't pick and choose which of the ECF doctrines you think are right, since you've already established that the certain doctrine A must be true if the ECF held it - you must then believe the ECF were right on all doctrines.

okay, I stand corrected.

 

[Andy T.]

We were simply showing that Augustine was the first to teach a "Calvinistic" interpretation and that other respectable CF did support our views.

So based on the selective quotes posted by Winman, you are stating without a doubt that Augustine was the first in church history to teach a "Calvinistic" view on things?

And just as a reminder, I have never met ANYONE who thinks we can be saved without some sort of "divine aid," so please stop pinning that on us as if its our view. Thank you.

I'm not. I simply commented on the John Chrysostom excerpt that Allan posted. It appears to me to be a [soft] form of Pelagianism.

 

[Winman]

Brother,

If you would actually read Ireneaeus, you would find that his idea of free will, and your idea of free will, are two completely different things. He taught "free will" as an infralapsarian Calvinist might teach it today. He, for example, wrote the following:

" Hence having completed the number which he before determined with himself, all those who are written, or ordained unto life, shall rise again, having their own bodies, souls, and spirits, in which they pleased God; but those who are deserving of punishment shall go into it, having also their own souls and bodies in which they departed from the grace of God."

The issue is not so cut and dry as you would like to present it. Simply citing someone as saying "God gave men free will" does not prove anything. Calvin himself stated this!

Also: you must take into account, the fact that the cannon was not yet completed at this time. Many of these fathers had the OT, plus one or two scrolls of NT books (Maybe a particular person had a copy of Matthew and 1 john), plus, many of those you quote, also quoted pseudopigraphal works as scripture.

You are reading into that statement what he is not saying. Do I agree that God determined before the foundation of the world to raise those who believed? Yes. Are those who believe ordained to eternal life? Yes. But I understand that God in his foreknowledge knows who will believe and who will not and have shown scripture many times that supports this.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
God's foreknowledge of who will believe and who will not is shown right in scripture if you will accept it. And there are quite a few other verses I could present that clearly show this.

Ireneaeus is not even speaking about free will and the ability or non-ability of the unregenerate man to believe in that statement, read it over again carefully.

So, you cannot even see that you are inserting your own presuppositions into his statement.

 

[Andy T.]

Untrue. In fact I went out of my way to state, "These men are in no way infallible and these quotes prove nothing definitive about this debate."

And to finish your quote: "but they are interesting and revealing. The one measure of support they do provide is that those who were discipled by the disciples of the original apostles, didn't seem to support a Calvinistic interpretation of the text. That says something whether modern day Calvinists will admit it or not."

So which is it - do these quotes "prove nothing definitive" or are they "revealing" or do they "say something" that Calvinists need to admit?

 

[Skandelon]

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#5

CHAPTER 1. OF PREDESTINATION
Introduction
SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus
SECTION 2. - Ignatius
SECTION 3. - Justin

Now, I haven't read through all of these, so I'm not making a fully developed commentary on this post, but in the three links I did read I was appalled at the blatant biased misrepresentations.

FOR EXAMPLE: In the link on Irenaeus, it begins by stating:

1. It is evident, that he believed that all things are predetermined by God, and are overruled by him for the good of his church and people; yea, that even the fall of man is used to their advantage; for he says,[3] that God has shown the greatness of his mind in the apostasy of man, for man is taught by it;" as the prophet says "Thy backslidings shall reform thee." Prefiniente Deo omnia ad hominis perfectionem. "God predetermining all things for the perfection of man, and for the bringing about and manifestation of his dispositions, that goodness may be shown, and righteousness perfected, and the church be conformed to the image of his Son, and at length become a perfect man, and by such things be made ripe to see God, and enjoy him."

Irenaeus says nothing more that what Paul said when he wrote, "God works out all things for good to those who love him." And when he says, "God predestines us to be conformed to Christ's image." We all affirm the truth that God has predetermined to work out all things to good and for the perfection of man. So, to suggest that Irenaeus supports reformed conclusions based upon these statements is unfounded. I could provide dozens of quotes from Arminius that made him sound like he supported Calvinism if I left quotes open ended and didn't provide his own conclusions for consideration. Or if I proof texted him in the same manner many proof text the scriptures.

It just seems to me that the authors of this source are as erroneous in interpreting the Church Fathers as they are in interpreting the scriptures.

 

[Winman]

And to finish your quote: "but they are interesting and revealing. The one measure of support they do provide is that those who were discipled by the disciples of the original apostles, didn't seem to support a Calvinistic interpretation of the text. That says something whether modern day Calvinists will admit it or not."

So which is it - do these quotes "prove nothing definitive" or are they "revealing" or do they "say something" that Calvinists need to admit?

What they prove is that these men did not believe scripture to teach Total Depravity. They simply did not see this in the scriptures, and neither do I.

If you know of scripture that proves unregenerate man does not have the ability to believe I would be happy to look at it.

 

[Skandelon]

And to finish your quote: "but they are interesting and revealing. The one measure of support they do provide is that those who were discipled by the disciples of the original apostles, didn't seem to support a Calvinistic interpretation of the text. That says something whether modern day Calvinists will admit it or not."

So which is it - do these quotes "prove nothing definitive" or are they "revealing" or do they "say something" that Calvinists need to admit?

Andy, please be reasonable here brother. I was correcting your statement, which asserted, "Winman and Co. suggested that since the ECF believed in libertarian free will, and they were not that far removed from the apostles teaching, then libertarian free will must be true."

That is much different from what I said, which was that it "proves nothing definitive" but that its "revealing," "interesting" and "says something."

In debate, quoting notable sources strengthens ones position, but it doesn't definitively prove anything because the other side also has notable sources. I think we should all be able to agree on this point.

 

[Winman]

What is most meaningful about these quotes is the fact that for the first 400 years of church history that no one believed in Total Depravity. It originated with Augustine who introduced many errors such as Purgatory and Infant Baptism. This is historical fact.

 

[Skandelon]

A quote from THE Church Father:

"no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. "

Who was "given" to come to Christ while he was here?

The chosen remnant of Israel...the hand picked apostles, the rest of Israel was being hardened.

Jn 12:39 This is why they were unable to believe, because Isaiah also said: 40 He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they would not see with their eyes or understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I would heal them.

Who was "given to come to Christ" after he was lifted up?

Jn 12:32 As for Me, if I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all [people] to Myself."

Rm 1:16: I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Jn 17:20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

Mk 16:15: He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation

Mt. 11:28: Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden , and I will give you rest

Col 1:23b: This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

 

[Skandelon]

So based on the selective quotes posted by Winman, you are stating without a doubt that Augustine was the first in church history to teach a "Calvinistic" view on things?

I thought that was a matter of accepted historical fact. Even Loraine Boettner, a noted Calvinistic scholar wrote:

It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc., as the basis of salvation. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will...They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will. It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out his own salvation. But at last, as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the great truth that salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed irrespective of merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the author in all of its stages. This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West.

I'm not. I simply commented on the John Chrysostom excerpt that Allan posted. It appears to me to be a [soft] form of Pelagianism.

It's typically referred to as "semi-pelgianism" and they are as distinct as Calvinism and "hyper-Calvinism."

 

[pinoybaptist]

This is several times you and others have falsely accused me of "chopping up" or editing material so that it misrepresents the entire document, and once again I am going to show you wrong. Here is where I got those quotes. Now, if the author of this page (who I disagree with on several points of doctrine) cut them up, I have nothing to do with that. I was simply looking for these quotes which I had seen online before.

Alright, I will withdraw that comment.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/church_fathers_and_free_will.html

I actually found this page by googling "early church fathers believed in free will" .

book title, chapter, chapter title, page number, and paragraph number will make your quote a little more authentic. As it is, you are quoting from a quote.
I googled exactly the way you did and got the same page. it was among those on the top of the list.
it is a website that can not by any stretch of the imagination said to be unbiased.
it was created by people like you who hate the Doctrine of Grace for whatever reason, so how can I be sure that they did not nitpick their quotes, too ?

because I already knew that the vast majority of early church fathers did not believe as Calvin or Augustine and believed the unregenerate man had the ability to believe and express faith in God

And how did you come to this knowledge ?

which is absolutely true.

And it is "absolutely true" because you believe that ? And on what authority do you pronounce absoluteness ?

You cannot change history just to make it support Calvinism.

And neither can you change history just to make it support your theology, which I hesitate to call Arminianism because there are real Arminians in this board who will be offended.

Augustine introduced much error to the church and Calvin picked up from him.

You see ?
Statements like this are what raises my temper. Who the dickens are you to pronounce judgment on Augustine and Calvin and others who are of the Doctrine of Grace persuasion ?
In seminary my teacher said he does not believe there will be anymore salvations after the rapture and I questioned him for the same reason.
It so happened I was holding a Scoffield Bible and right there is Scoffield's statement saying there will still be souls saved during the GT (figure that out, clue: not a sportscar).
What I was really saying is who is he, an obscure Arminian, confused dispensationalist teaching to a class of 12 in an obscure Baptist church in an obscure location in Greater Manila, so obscure if you didn't know where it was at you'd probably pass it, saying, in effect, that Scoffield and others like him, who were more learned than he is in Scripture, who have a Bible with his name on it being used by theologians in all corners of the world, was wrong, and he, the obscure, unkown one, was right ?

There is an interesting article on Augustine worth reading there, for one thing he did not even know the original languages that so many here put so much stock in and rely upon his translations.

It is a BIASED website, just looking at its image tells you that, and is therefore not even worthy of scrutiny.
And for the record, I for one don't care about Augustine, or Calvin.
My belief and adherence to the Doctrine of Grace results from personal study, not from reading any of them.
I read them to confirm what I already know, and they have a lot of things they hold to I don't care about.

Find a website that has the books, quote from the book, and quote properly.

 

[J.D.]

Who was "given" to come to Christ while he was here?

The chosen remnant of Israel...the hand picked apostles, the rest of Israel was being hardened.



Who was "given to come to Christ" after he was lifted up?

Well, the text does say "no man". If we are not to take that in the absolute sense, then why should we take "draw all men to me" in the absolute sense?

 

[Andy T.]

It's typically referred to as "semi-pelgianism" and they are as distinct as Calvinism and "hyper-Calvinism."

Semi-P teaches that God takes the first step, but man must cooperate. Pelagianism teaches man must take the first step and God completes the rest (to whatever degree remains). I gathered from that John C. excerpt that he believed man must take the first step, thus, the Pelagianism. But as we are seeing in the flurry of posts on this thread, the ECF were a mixed bag in what they taught and wrote, so I am not charging John C. with Pelagianism. I just think that one excerpt has a Pelagian flavor to it.