Featured "Doctrines of Grace", "TULIP", Augustine and Calvin

1. Um, Augustine...?

2. Clement of Alexandria (150-215):...rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord—those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous.

Origen: “Our free will…or human nature is not sufficient to seek God in any manner.”

Barnabas (A.D. 70): “We are elected to hope, committed by God unto faith, appointed to salvation.”

Irenaeus (A.D. 198): “God hath completed the number which He before determined with Himself, all those who are written, or ordained unto eternal life…Being predestined indeed according to the love of the Father that we would belong to Him forever.”

Tertullian (A.D. 200): “Do you think, O men, that we should ever have been able to have understood these things in the Scriptures unless by the will of Him that wills all things, we had received grace to understand them?…But by this it is plain, that [faith] is not given to thee by God, because thou dost not ascribe it to Him alone.”

Athanasius (A.D. 350): “To believe is not ours, or in our power, but the Spirit’s who is in us, and abides in us.”

Clement Of Rome (A.D. 69): “It is the will of God that all whom He loves should partake of repentance, and so not perish with the unbelieving and impenitent. He has established it by His almighty will. But if any of those whom God wills should partake of the grace of repentance, should afterwards perish, where is His almighty will? And how is this matter settled and established by such a will of His?”

Clement Of Alexandria (A.D. 190): “Such a soul [of a Christian] shall never at any time be separated from God…Faith, I say, is something divine, which cannot be pulled asunder by any other worldly friendship, nor be dissolved by present fear.”

Tertullian: “God forbid that we should believe that the soul of any saint should be drawn out by the devil…For what is of God is never extinguished.”

FROM THE ABOVE:

We can see that ascribing specific beliefs to the church fathers is difficult. And looking for a consensus among them is nearly impossible. The first there seems to be espousing the classic arminian "divine foreknowledge" view...and I have inserted a few others that seem to support a calvinistic view.

Now, of course you or me could easily find a bunch of quotes that oppose Unconditional Election and espouse the possibility of losing one's salvation...probably from some of the same people quoted above...the point is...

Church fathers will often contradict each other, and even themselves on occasion. One can find and ECF to support nearly any teaching, including some really bizarre stuff.


3. OT:

-God Chose Abraham from an idol worshiping people to know him and begin a new nation.

-God chose Israel not due to something good in them, but due to his own character (Duet 7:6-8, Deut 9).

-In choosing Israel, God was necessarily choosing the individuals within Israel to have a knowledge of him, and blessing from him, not enjoyed by the rest of the nations.

 

Perhaps you need to read my response again. But I believe that 12 strings has already answered your concerns so don't bother.

I would say this. You keep harping that the Early Church Fathers did not teach the Doctrines of Grace. If these doctrines are not supported by Scripture then the Doctrines are wrong no matter when and by whom they are taught. But the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace are taught throughout Scripture as I noted in my posts #'s 4, 7, & 9.

If you will simply read Genesis 3 you will see that God sought out Adam and Eve after their rebellion!

 

There you go.....See, your edu wasn't a complete waist of time now was it! :laugh:

Now with that being said....na, never mind.

 

Who needs an education? I've got the Internet!!!!

 

What 12 strings is listing are quotes from the ECFs stating that Jehovah extends grace to sinners. I don't think anyone is questioning that. What is being asked and not answered are what exactly are the Doctrines of Grace and how do they differ from TULIP and or Calvinism or any other theological system that has Christian roots. From a historical perspective, when/where did the doctrines of grace come from? Like TULIP and like Calvinism on the whole, the "Doctrines of Grace" as discussed here have every indication of being, just like reformed theology, a systematic doctrine of a modern vintage. Not that there is anything particurly wrong with that.

 

Well he told you he doesn't see it in the scriptures O.R. That denial alone changes the whole context of the understanding just like a Pelagian not seeing Original Sin. But we DoG believers pussy foot around attempting to explain it to them, these blind guides because we attempt to do what? Freakin change their minds?!? The mindset is already set in one direction, Example: Your a heretical gnostic & Augustine, Edwards, ML-J, Hodge, Milton, Sinclair Ferguson, Boyce, Ryken, Murry, Kuyper, Piper etc are not sufficiently intelligent enough to understand the genius of Pelagianism, Semi-P, Arminism, Non-Calvinism & whatever humanistic chap-trap that comes down the highway.

Here is what I have been able to glean from my own studies & participation on this forum. What is peddled today is rank Pelagianism. What is being marketed nowadays as the 1st wave however looks more like a do-it-yourself variety of semi-Pelagianism. It's not really clear whether they have solidified a position they are going to stick with, but there is clearly no taste for the truth that Adam's sin left us all guilty and condemned (Romans 5:18). They are simply modifying virtually every aspect of soteriology—original sin, grace, election, faith, sanctification, etc.—to fit the steadfast conviction that salvation ultimately hinges on human free will rather than divine grace. This is classic home-brew theology, making up its own definitions on the fly and devising novel explanations for vital points of theology as the situation demands.

So in closing, please continue to contend for the faith we both hold to, I will also......but recognize the "Thing" your fighting with & realize you will not change the minds of your opponents....your just attempting to defend your own beliefs. And you will continue to uphold a minority position (which I have no problem defending). :thumbs: I will also.:love2:

Be well & blessings to all.

 

Good One.....:laugh:

 

This is the problem. The DOGers give the impression that if you question the "Doctrines of Grace" dogma then you are in effect something really bad. Actually, what is being asked are for some specific comparisons between the DOGs and other theological systems mainly Calvinism/TULIP. Why is this so difficult?

 

EWF, thank you for pointing me to Boice and Ryken; looks like they call a spade a spade:

http://www.monergismbooks.com/pdfs/doctrinesgrace-boice.pdf

p. 18

 

The problem is that you consider DoG Dogma & not full doctrine. & excuse me but your camp has been given answers to questions ad nausium. I for one am tired of your inability to see clearly & comprehend....leading me to conclude it is futile to continue any significant dialog with your camp. Rather, I suggest we merely agree to disagree & go from there. These useless conversations go nowhere so just stop them. Why is that so difficult?

 

I would suggest you read the entire book.

 

You really need to read 12 strings again! I am going to help you a little by emphasizing certain parts! I showed that God through His Grace took the initiative after the rebellion of Adam and Eve. 12strings shows that some of the ECF carries that further indicating both man's inability and God's election of some!

The Doctrines of Sovereign Grace which I talk about come from the Bible. I have told you that. Furthermore, as has been stated several times the so-called Five Points of Calvinism were developed, after the death of Calvin, as a response to the Five Remonstrances, a rejection of Calvinism by followers of Arminius. I am not a student of Calvinism, never have been, never have read anything he wrote. However, I doubt that the Five Points are an exhaustive statement of Calvin's understanding of Scripture regarding the Doctrines of Grace.

I would never claim that my understanding of what I call the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace were developed solely from my reading of Scripture. They were not. They were formed as I read both Scripture and certain books on doctrine, but always confirmed by Scripture. That study, and some observations of life, resulted in my understanding that Salvation is all of God, not God with the consent of man!

I have previously listed a number of aspects of Salvation that are not included in TULIP, the most significant of these perhaps being the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. If you are really interested in reading a good exposition of the Doctrines of Grace I suggest God the Holy Spirit by Martyn Lloyd-Jones! Lloyd-Jones discusses the Covenant of Grace in the initial volume of the 3 volume series God the Father, God the Son.

 

What exactly is "my camp" Earth Wind and Fire? I don't think you can answer that question any better than you can make a real true comparison between reformed calvinism and the "DOGs". And your getting "tired" of my questions that you cannot answer is somehow better than my possibly getting tired of asking for Biblical proof of the covenants of Works, Grace and/or Redemption?

Sorry if asking for either Biblical proof (re: covenant theology) or historical proof (re: DOGs) that a large percentage of posters on this board use to prove their theology causes you so much personal discomfort.

 

:laugh: Mark my words Old Regular.......We NEVER took on the "exercise" of explaining stuff! Just make sure you remember this so you can reach into the archives next time the condemnation arises.

 

On this statement we agree.

 

Did you read my first few posts on this thread?

In Modern Usage, When someone refers to the "Doctrines of Grace," If they are theologically informed, they are refering to the Tulip, ie, the soteriological aspects of Calvinism. It does not necessisarily mean they baptize babies or think a presbetry in another state should control your church, Or agree with calvin on everything.

OR may say that his Doctrines of grace merely include TULIP, but also belives other things (like Jesus being God for example...Nothing in Tulip about that).

But, if you are looking for differences, you won't find any...
DOG & TULIP & CALVINISM AGREE COMPLETELY ON SOTERIOLOGY.

(Why is this so difficult?)

 

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones!!!!!!!!
yea!
Baptist

 

I did read that and I agree with it but I don't understand why you quoted the ECFs unless you believe that the ECFs were reformed. Mainly I was reacting to the post by another who stated that you answered the question regarding the ECFs position on what is called on this board the DoGs.

 

First off....dont think.....either know or dont know, because when you think you mostly broadcast uncertainty & thats dangerous. No my friend Im just getting tired of you......you pussy foot between one theology & another without standing up as a man & being known for what you believe. Frankly you shoot your mouth off more than you stand up for any one given theology.... you must be completely confused so you rail against others....in particular Calvinists! Answer me this, why is that? Why do you feel compelled to go on the attack? You appear somewhat intelligent so what do you need, HAND HOLDING through doctrine? What RC will attempt is to do is painstakingly explain his beliefs....and that is what ICONO does, only to be vilified by the cabal, Im frankly waiting for it to happen again....I will set my clock by it.

But so as to throw out the lifeline, go and buy the book "The Doctrines Of Grace" it is authored by James Montgomery Boice & Philip Ryken & you can get soft cover for like $12.00 Bucks. Maybe they can answer all your questions & concerns.

I have a fire that happened last night to contend with...that will occupy my time.

 

I quoted them in response to T. Helwys to show reformed-sounding writings pre-Calvin, and pre-augustine.

My point is not to argue that the ECFs were reformed, but that their beleifs on nearly every issue were all over the board. I am leary when anyone attributes a specific belief to "The Early church Fathers", As if they all agreed on everything for the first 400 years of the church until Augustine messed everything up.

It is well known that specific trinitarian statements took time to be formulated, but that doesn't mean we accuse the earliest fathers of denying the trinity.

I would simply say this: one can find ECF writings that seem to support the reformed/Dog/tulip/Calvinistic view of Election/depravity/perseverance. You can also find ECF writings that seem to contradict them...sometimes by the same writers!

In Fairness, based on volume of expressed viewpoints, It seems that the Dog/Tulip view was not predominant, but it also seems that some of them may have simply accepted dual truths without reconciling them: "God Chose us to be saved before the foundation of the world / I must chose to accept Christ, or die lost...how can those both be true? I don't know, but that Roman soldier is coming to kill us so let's get out of here!"