Early Church Dads And Reformers ...

[Rippon]

... who had Calvinistic sentiments . This thread is in reference to the info which was culled from the work of Ron Rhoades . Rhoades may call himself a Calvinist , but since he keeps company with Norm Geisler and Hank Hanegraff I wouldn't bet the house on it .

I have gathered some info from John Gill's : " The Cause Of God And Truth " to rebut Mr. Rhoades . First of all the early Church Fathers were not overtly Calvinistic because it was an assumed stance . For Rhoades to put Augustine in the ranks of those who believe in a general atonement is absurd . He must have gotten confused with the pre-Retractions Augustine vs. the latter , more biblical model .

Herewith follow a couple of examples .

Clement of Alexanderia : ... God distributes his benefits both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians ; and to them who are predestined from among them , and are in his own time called , fruitful and elect . ( p.268 )

Athanasius : How therefore should he chose us before we were , unless , as he has said , we were before deliniated in him ? How verily , before men were created , should he predestinate us , unless the Son of himself had been founded before the world was having undertook the economy of salvation for us ? ( p.233 )

Cyril of Jerusalem [ Hierosolymitanus ] : ... the church of the whole world ... the world of men that believe in him that was crucified .

Gregory of Nazianzen : God does not take pleasure in the multitues ; thou numberest myriads , but God , those that are to be saved ; than the unmeasurable dust ; but the vessels of election . ( p. 235 )

 

[Rippon]

Continuing ...

Basil : We are the nation , of whom the Lord is our God ; we are the people whom he has chosen for an inheritance for himself ; a nation truly , because we are gathered out of many nations : a people verily , because we are called in the room of a people cast away , and because many are called , and few are chosen ; he calls not him that is called , but him that is chosen , blessed ; therefore is he whom he hath chosen . ( p. 235 )

Those few selections were from John Gill's research . Shortly I will quote Francis Turretin , from his :"The Atonement Of Christ " (p. 115 ) . This concerns Prosper , a younger contemporary of Augustine . Prosper says : Those who embrace the Pelagian heresy , profess to believe that Christ died for all men universally , and that none are excluded from the atonement and redemption which the blood of Christ has effected .

Now moving on to some Reformers , I am amazed that Rhoades would put Luther in the camp of those who support an indefinite atonement . His " The Bondage Of The Will " was stronger that anything Calvin wrote on the subject for instance .

Jerome Zanchius ! Rhoades certainly did not do his homework on this predestinarian . Zanchius wrote the famous " The Doctrine Of Absolute Predestination " . I have Toplady's translation from the original Italian ( or was it Latin ? ) back in the states .

Henry Bullinger was instrumental in the very strongly Calvinistic works -- the 1st and 2nd Helvetic Confessions .

Martin Bucer ! He was a primary mentor of John Calvin . Calvinism might very well be called Bucerism . Bucer was calvinistic before Calvin arrived on the scene .

I'm surprised that Rhoades didn't include Gottschalk of the 800's -- he was double predestinarian all the way ! He endured imprisonment and torture for his beliefs of the same .

Why didn't Rhoades include John Knox who studied at Calvin's feet ? How about Twisse and Gomarus from the generation following Calvin's ? Perhaps Rhoades didn't want to get in too deep with those who actually know the reality of the men of the past who were certainly not holders of an unlimited atonement , but maintained an unflinching belief in the Lord's sovereign choice of some for eternal life .

 

[Rippon]

Continuing ...

Multiple post -- tech difficulties .

 

[Rippon]

Continuing ...

Mistake due to tech problems .

 

[Rippon]

Continuing ...

Can we all say " OOPS " together ?

 

[Rippon]

Continuing ...

I don't mean to be repetitive , but ...

 

[Rippon]

Continuing ...

I had never even had one double post before to my knowledge . Now six in a row !

 

[Rippon]

Continuing ...

... Over and over and over again ...

 

[Allan]

This is what you are trying to refute, I believe Rippon. It will help those who want to look into it to actaully SEE what these early church fathers actaully SAID so they can look into it themselves as well.

Quotations from the Early Church Fathers
Clement of Alexandria (150-220): "Christ freely brings...salvation to the whole human race."

Eusebius (260-340): "It was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race."

Athanasius (293-373): "Christ the Son of God, having assumed a body like ours, because we were all exposed to death [which takes in more than the elect], gave Himself up to death for us all as a sacrifice to His Father."

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): "Do not wonder if the whole world was ransomed, for He was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God."

Gregory of Nazianzen (324-389): "The sacrifice of Christ is an imperishable expiation of the whole world."

Basil (330-379): "But one thing was found that was equivalent to all men....the holy and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He poured out for us all."

Ambrose (340-407): "Christ suffered for all, rose again for all. But if anyone does not believe in Christ, he deprives himself of that general benefit."
He also said, "Christ came for the salvation of all, and undertook the redemption of all, inasmuch as He brought a remedy by which all might escape, although there are many who...are unwilling to be healed."

Augustine (354-430): Though Augustine is often cited as supporting limited atonement, there are also clear statements in Augustine's writings that are supportive of unlimited atonement. For example: "The Redeemer came and gave the price, shed His blood, and bought the world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price: what is of so great worth? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations?"
He also stated, "The blood of Christ was shed for the remission of all sins."

Cyril of Alexandria (376-444): "The death of one flesh is sufficient for the ransom of the whole human race, for it belonged to the Logos, begotten of God the Father."

Prosper (a friend and disciple of Augustine who died in 463): "As far as relates to the magnitude and virtue of the price, and to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world: but those who pass through this life without the faith of Christ, and the sacrament of regeneration, do not partake of the redemption."
He also said, "The Savior is most rightly said to have been crucified for the redemption of the whole world." He then said, "Although the blood of Christ be the ransom of the whole world, yet they are excluded from its benefit, who, being delighted with their captivity, are unwilling to be redeemed by it."

Quotations from the Reformers of the 16th Century
Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Christ is not cruel exactor, but a forgiver of the sins of the whole world....He hath given Himself for our sins, and with one oblation hath put away the sins of the whole world....Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world...Not only my sins and thine, but also the sins of the whole world...take hold upon Christ."

Philip Melanchton (1497-1560): "It is necessary to know that the Gospel is a universal promise, that is, that reconciliation is offered and promised to all mankind. It is necessary to hold that this promise is universal, in opposition to any dangerous imaginations on predestination, lest we should reason this promise pertains to a few others and ourselves. But we declare that the promise of the Gospel is universal. And to this are brought those universal expressions which are used constantly in the Scriptures."

Other people involved to some degree in the Reformation who held to unlimited atonement include: Hugh Latimer, Myles Coverdale, Thomas Cranmer, Wolfgang Musculus, Henry Bullinger, Benedict Aretius, Thomas Becon, Jerome Zanchius, David Paraeus, and John Calvin.

Quotations from Other Luminaries from Recent Church History
Philip Schaff: "His saving grace flows and overflows to all and for all, on the simple condition of faith....If, by the grace of God, I could convert a single skeptic to a childlike faith in Him who lived and died for me and for all, I would feel that I had not lived in vain."

B. F. Westcott: "Potentially, the work of Christ extends to the whole world." And "the love of God is without limit on His part, but to appropriate the blessing of love, man must fulfill the necessary condition of faith."

A. T. Robertson: [The word "world" in John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world" - means] "the whole cosmos of men, including the Gentiles, the whole human race," and adds that "this universal aspect of God's love appears also in II Cor. 5:19; Rom. 5:8."

Tidbits
The 6th council in Constantinople (680-681) declared, "Wherefore we confess two wills and two operations, concurring most fitly in him for the salvation of the human race."

The reformers, and certainly the children of the reformers, were not united on this matter. It is, of course, no secret to the student of the Reformation that the Lutheran branch almost without exception embraced the unlimited view. "But that Luther, Melanchthon, Osiander, Brentius, Oecoiampadius, Zwinglius and Bucer held the doctrine of a general atonement...
Thus also, it was with their immediate successors, as the language of the Psalgrave Confession testifies.... 'Of the power and death of Christ, believe we,' say these German Christians, that the death of Christ (whilst he being not a bare man, but the Son of God, died,) is a full, all sufficient payment, not only for our sins but for the sins of the whole world. . . [James Richards, Lectures on Mental Philosophy and Theology (New York: M. W. Dodd, 1846) p. 304]

The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) of the German Reformed Church in answer to the thirty-seventh question, "What dost thou understand by the word Suffered?" has this answer: "That all the time he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, he bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the of the whole human race...."[pg 8]

John Calvins Commentaries: (During the later years of his life Calvin wrote his commentaries, which reveal some development of thought, and in which he avoided some of the extremes found in the Institutes.)
John 3:16, he said: ". . . The Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.''11 Concerning the term whosoever in the same verse, he said: "And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the impact of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.''

Such an understanding of this verse and the words employed in it is certainly not in keeping with many who claim to be Calvinists, as the following pages will reveal. Another illustration of Calvin's view is to be found in his explanation of:

Matthew 26:28. ". . .This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins [italics mine]." He says: "Under the name of many he designates not a part of the world only, but the whole human race"

It is in fact it would be better held that Limited atonement was not popular UNTIL the Synod of Dort.

Now since this is about irresistable grace, for reasons listed above and scriptures that stand by them (historical stances and scriptural stance) I maintain that it can not be irresistable if Christ died for ALL.

Lastly:
Romans 5:18 says: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

Regarding this verse, John Calvin says: "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all [i.e., in their experience]; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him."

Regarding the two occurrences of the phrase "all men," E. H. Gifford comments: "The words all men [in v. 18] must have the same extent in both clauses."

Your ASSUMPTION that the early church fathers were not overtly Calvinistic because it was an assumed stance hold very little credence in light of historical documents (ie. early church Fathers letters)

And just an aside - Augustine was not ALWAYS a Predestinarian but became one later on. NOT because of what he gathered from early church fathers or the like but he came to that conclusion on his own. It was NOT a supported stance at that time. So please stop pretending Augustine held to Calvinism as if it was something that he held from the first. It was not!

BTW - who are you to call into question a persons theological stance. From what I have heard from your own postings your own veiws also differ somewhat from other Calvinists. SHould they question whether or not you are?!

 

[Rippon]

Exactly Allan ...

... Folks should examine things for themselves . Athanasius , Basil , Cyril , Gregory and all the rest do not do double-speak . Oh , I missed Ambrose who led Augustine along spiritually : "The remnant , are saved , not by their own works , but by the election of grace . " ( p. 237 in Gill's book ) .

So many others were mentioned in passing by Rhoades without a quote --- just an assertion that they believed in universal redemption . Just trying to do a bit of truth-telling here .

 

[Rippon]

Oh Allan , BTW , I had mentioned that Rhoades must have been confused about Augustine . A number of beliefs that he held to earlier on were renounced in his Retractions . Of course he changed his views . He used to be an ardent free-willer . But maybe you weren't reading my posts so well ( your old eyes and all . ) . Maybe you'll have to retract some things said in your haste .

 

[Allan]

Oh Allan , BTW , I had mentioned that Rhoades must have been confused about Augustine . A number of beliefs that he held to earlier on were renounced in his Retractions . Of course he changed his views . He used to be an ardent free-willer . But maybe you weren't reading my posts so well ( your old eyes and all . ) . Maybe you'll have to retract some things said in your haste .

LOL, hey now - no need to get real here! :laugh:

No, no retractions here. Look up what he said AND WHEN he said it.

But I agree there was a time (like I said) where he did not hold those those view he later espoused.


BTW - I could careless about what John Gill says. What was posted are the words of the early church fathers OWN quotes. Stop being silly and let the early Church fathers speak for themselves.

You would have everyone believe a myth that ALL the early church held to a Calvinistic doctrine when in fact they did not. You even admitted that Augustine himself was an ardent free-willer. Now for me that turm is quite abused and a blatant misrepresentation of the actual definition currently ascribed to it today, so there needs to be a difinition of the term free-will and the time period you wish to bring it up from.

Like Luther and his book "Bondage of the Will" was speaking against the type of free-will that declares a person can come to God at any time they want and whenever they please. THIS IS NOT the current understanding (within the Baptist Non-Cal and Non- Arminian constructs) regarding the OLD term of free-will.

Yes I have read the Bondage of the will and even have both a hard copy and softward book. Augustine fought against a similar type of free-will definition which came from within his own denomination at that time. Learn what it is you are arguing about because this is one reason so many of the Non-Persuasion get frustrated talking with most Calvinists - is because you don't even understand what we believe. You think the same terms of free-will are synonomous with its meaning back 400 plus years ago and another varient of it 1500 plus years ago. There were those in THAT day and age that did not hold to THAT type of free-willism.

 

[Rippon]

Allan , if you could care less means you have the capacity to care more . And I trust you will care more . Don't go and impugn John Gill's word . There aren't many in Church history who could match up with him in several areas where he excelled . He did not make up the quotes he listed . I would say your sources such as Rhoades are far more vulnerable and questionable . Gill versus Gill ? Hey , it's Gill any day -- hands down !

Forgive me , but I will have to repeat myself . Athanasius , Basil and the others that I quoted are not engaged in double-talk . They did not believe in universal salvation . They believed that Christ died for the elect . A number of men that Rhoades mentioned in passing did not hold to a general salvation . And Rhoades did not back his assertions up with any quotes . You will have to cite where saints such as Bucer and Zanchius opined that Christ did not die for the elect . I have a clue for you . Your task will be in vain should you even try .

Augustine changed a number of his theological views especially on the notion of the will . He formally changed his mind in written form -- they are found in his Retractions . Yes , he was a free-willer previously .

Many Church Fathers were Calvinistic . They did not have a systematic approach to the discussion though . It is similiar to the doctrine of the Trinity . Many folks had a good general grasp of the teaching but it was not articulated -- mainly assumed . The Nicea Confession fleshed things out in a cogent manner later on in 325 for the first time .

I admit that there are variations among synergists of various stripes regarding the nature of the will . But it still boils down to the biblical testimony being denied . The natural person has no ability to discern the spiritual . People have a natural disability . They do not have the "freedom" to choose God . They are bondslaves to sin . They are not in the dark -- they are darkness . They are depraved . So folks who are enslaved with no power or ability of their own to "decide for Christ " have no true liberty with respect to their wills .

It is really amazing that so many professing Christians join hands with the unregenerate world at-large in espousing "free-will" . Show me any worldling who denies free will ( not counting the fatalists of Muslim persuasion ) .

 

[Allan]

Allan , if you could care less means you have the capacity to care more . And I trust you will care more . Don't go and impugn John Gill's word . There aren't many in Church history who could match up with him in several areas where he excelled . He did not make up the quotes he listed . I would say your sources such as Rhoades are far more vulnerable and questionable . Gill versus Gill ? Hey , it's Gill any day -- hands down !

Forgive me , but I will have to repeat myself . Athanasius , Basil and the others that I quoted are not engaged in double-talk . They did not believe in universal salvation . They believed that Christ died for the elect . A number of men that Rhoades mentioned in passing did not hold to a general salvation . And Rhoades did not back his assertions up with any quotes . You will have to cite where saints such as Bucer and Zanchius opined that Christ did not die for the elect . I have a clue for you . Your task will be in vain should you even try .

Augustine changed a number of his theological views especially on the notion of the will . He formally changed his mind in written form -- they are found in his Retractions . Yes , he was a free-willer previously .

Many Church Fathers were Calvinistic . They did not have a systematic approach to the discussion though . It is similiar to the doctrine of the Trinity . Many folks had a good general grasp of the teaching but it was not articulated -- mainly assumed . The Nicea Confession fleshed things out in a cogent manner later on in 325 for the first time .

I admit that there are variations among synergists of various stripes regarding the nature of the will . But it still boils down to the biblical testimony being denied . The natural person has no ability to discern the spiritual . People have a natural disability . They do not have the "freedom" to choose God . They are bondslaves to sin . They are not in the dark -- they are darkness . They are depraved . So folks who are enslaved with no power or ability of their own to "decide for Christ " have no true liberty with respect to their wills .

It is really amazing that so many professing Christians join hands with the unregenerate world at-large in espousing "free-will" . Show me any worldling who denies free will ( not counting the fatalists of Muslim persuasion ) .

Your main problem Rippon is that you ASSUME ALOT. I did not take Mr. Rhoades word for it and just believe it. Do you think me or any who is Non-Calvinist are ignorant regergitators? I mean do you?? You talk all the time about how you don't follow other men but from all of the OP's you only quote what other men say about the bible and very little about what YOU have gathered from your own studies. Also I did not say I don't care for John Gill. My statement about caringless about Gill was what YOU state he said about the those people than actually quoting those people. You take his word as gospel, AND THAT is what scares me about ANYONE. It is no wonder your understanding of the Non-Cal view is matched (IMO) with that of the Calvinists opinion of Dave Hunts assumption he has a firm grasp on Calvinism.

Prove my friend, the early church fathers were calvinistic? I have a clue for you, your research will be in vain. It is ONLY mainly assumed by Calvinists the early church fathers were of the same mind set (as a whole). Much like the Mechanics of Calvinism it has NEVER been an established provable fact to move it from a VEIW to the catagory of immutable truth.

I need to address something there though.

I will ask you this Rippon and tread carefully your answers here my friend:
1. Who is it the scriptures declare that teaches God children His Word?

2. Who is it that knows the Truths of God and reveals these to those seeking God counsil and face for that truth?

3. Who is it that dares to judge another mans servant, to determine for himself whether he has fallen or stands?

If you call me brother and dare assume that what I have learned is not from God Himself via the illumating by His Spirit then by that same token you MUST believe that I have recieved a doctrine of demons from another spirit.

So when dare assciate me and the teachings God has revealed to me (and others) with that of linking hands with the unregenerate as though I am one of them or in party with them; I will rise up the very blood of my savior and Lord and declare to you: Then rebuke My Lord who has given me that which I have. For I have received NOTHING but that with He has yeilded unto me. For it is to Him that I will rise or fall. And I can say with eternal assurance He has upheld me with His right hand. For 17 years I have labored to show myself approved unto the Lord my God and sought His face in all things concerning scripture and doctrine therefore speak as you do to me unto Him who has taught me all I know, for I have only trusted in Him and not what men say.

I rarely EVER become angered so in my spirit and I must back off.
Though I appologize for the feelings it might proke in you but not that which I have laid bare.

I don't care if you think what I believe is right according to your view but I will no longer but equated with the unregenerate and spiritually decieved. I am a follower of Christ who's testimony of His salvation is born out in my life and will stand by any longer and allow a brother in the Lord to degrade the Lord my God by degrading His servent yeilding his life to His will.

As to your desire to hold the early church fathers as Calvinstic then so be it, and let it be done.

 

[Rippon]

Okay Allan , listen carefully . John Gill was an early Church authority ( as well as an authority on a number of things in thelogy proper ) . He was quoting the early Church Fathers . He was not stating his opinion of what they said -- he was actually quoting them . I still haven't seen any quotes furnished by you of some men Rhoades said believed in an indefinite atonement . Men such as Bucer and Zanchius were firm believers in the doctrine of a particular atonement -- that Christ died only for the elect . Rhoades listed a bunch of names with no quotes -- just lumped em together and said , "There ya go . Here's some more Arminian Calvinists for ya ." Naw , it doesn't wash Allan .

I am sorry that you took offence with my comment that so many professing Christians join hands with unregenerate worldlings in their common belief in classic free will . But it is a fact nontheless . Have you ever met a Mormon or JW who denies free will ? I didn't think so .

I am not questioning your salvation Allan . I do not believe you are believing in the doctrines of demons . I believe you subscribe to some sub-biblical ideas ( worldly philosophies ) . God can change you . I can not . God can change me . You can't . I have blind spots -- all Christians do . As we continue our sojourn down here and meditate on His Word we will grow into greater conformity with His mind on a number of teachings that the Bible presents .

 

[Jarthur001]

This is what you are trying to refute, I believe Rippon. It will help those who want to look into it to actaully SEE what these early church fathers actaully SAID so they can look into it themselves as well.

Your ASSUMPTION that the early church fathers were not overtly Calvinistic because it was an assumed stance hold very little credence in light of historical documents (ie. early church Fathers letters)

Clement of Alexandria (150-220): "Christ freely brings...salvation to the whole human race."

Show me where CA said this. Those that claim this came from CA say it is in Paedagogus Chapter 11. Sorry...not there. I have yet to see it. Please tell me book and page.

 

[Jarthur001]

Show me where CA said this. Those that claim this came from CA say it is in Paedagogus Chapter 11. Sorry...not there. I have yet to see it. Please tell me book and page.

OK...here we go again.

Eusebius (260-340): "It was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race."

Please show me where this is? I just did a a quick read of chapter 10 (That the Only-begotten Son of God made His Entry among Mankind of Necessity)... of Demonstratio Evangelica Book 4. I could not find it. Help me out on this. Its not looking good for the home team.

 

[Allan]

Show me where CA said this. Those that claim this came from CA say it is in Paedagogus Chapter 11. Sorry...not there. I have yet to see it. Please tell me book and page.

Your right is doesn't say it in those words (and that bothered me a bit, I confess so I don't know if it was just a paraphrase or what) the quote came from J. Davenant, Death of Christ, Vol 2 on the Colossians.

But here is what C.A. DID SAY in Ch 11:

Wherefore He Himself, declaring Himself very beautifully, likened Himself to a grain of mustard-seed; Matthew 13:31; Luke 13:19 and pointed out the spirituality of the word that is sown, and the productiveness of its nature, and the magnificence and conspicuousness of the power of the word; and besides, intimated that the pungency and the purifying virtue of punishment are profitable on account of its sharpness. By the little grain, as it is figuratively called, He bestows salvation on all humanity abundantly...

And then Ch. 12:

Thus, therefore, the Word has been called also the Saviour, seeing He has found out for men those rational medicines which produce vigour of the senses and salvation; and devotes Himself to watching for the favourable moment, reproving evil, exposing the causes of evil affections, and striking at the roots of irrational lusts, pointing out what we ought to abstain from, and supplying all the antidotes of salvation to those who are diseased. For the greatest and most regal work of God is the salvation of humanity.

 

[Allan]

Please show me where this is? I just did a a quick read of chapter 10 (That the Only-begotten Son of God made His Entry among Mankind of Necessity)... of Demonstratio Evangelica Book 4. I could not find it. Help me out on this. Its not looking good for the home team.

This is the preface of Eusebius work:

For He was the Lamb that takes away sin, according to John the Baptist, when he said: "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world," and He was the Lamb led to the slaughter in the oracle of Isaiah, which said: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before her shearers is dumb." And of Him as of a lamb was it said: "For the sins of my people he was led to death." For it was necessary that the Lamb of God, taken by the great High-Priest on behalf of the other kindred lambs, for all the flock of mankind, should be offered as a sacrifice to God: "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead," says the apostle; "and as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Hence, also, He taught His disciples that He was life and light and truth, and the other conceptions of His Divinity, whereas to them that were not initiated into the secrets of His nature, He said: "Why do ye seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth?"

It was in Book 10. It was a typo on the listing of the footer which indictates the quote is from the preface of his work. And apparently some of these are paraphrases. Like I told Rippon LONG ago when we first spoke of these (or maybe it was Reformedbeliever) I mearly copied his quick list because I am at work when I post most of the time and don't have access to my research on these and even then it was photo copies that are highlighted. But I lay what I have bare here in the fullness of their own writings and not in single sentences.

Here is a peice from Ch 7

John actually mentions the cold, saying, "The servants and attendants stood round, having made a fire of coals, for it was cold, and they warmed themselves." The prophecy was thus literally fulfilled. And figuratively, as well in regard to the whole Jewish nation the reality of which those things were symbols was also fulfilled----when the light of salvation shone on them, and they chose darkness rather (c) than light, and the light departed from them, and unspeakable night overwhelmed them, and the eyes of their mind were darkened, so that the rays of the Gospel should not shine in their hearts, and when too their love to God waxed cold.

This one could go in the blindness thread

 

[Jarthur001]

This is the preface of Eusebius work:


It was in Book 10. It was a typo on the listing of the footer which indictates the quote is from the preface of his work. And apparently some of these are paraphrases. Like I told Rippon LONG ago when we first spoke of these (or maybe it was Reformedbeliever) I mearly copied his quick list because I am at work when I post most of the time and don't have access to my research on these and even then it was photo copies that are highlighted. But I lay what I have bare here in the fullness of their own writings and not in single sentences.

Here is a peice from Ch 7
This one could go in the blindness thread

I don't have a problem with the statements as they were wrote. Yet you have to agree, many are changing the wording to better fit their own thoughts. I did not look all of them up. I ran into a book that I could not find, and stopped looking all together after a hour. But it seems most of the statements were reworded.

I want to add this...

I also do not deny the doctrines of grace was not talked about from around 120-320ad. It was not that they talked much about free-will either. There were a small hand full that took one side on the other, but for the most part it was silent time. If you are to look at church history as a whole it is clear why this was.

I also have to agree with rippon. Gill is well trusted in Church history. Gill is more Calvinist than I, but he does seem to be true to report the facts, even when it hurts his views. Now he will add his slant, but one can read though that.

I love history, and the hardest part is seeing who lies and who does not. If one must lie, then something is wrong. If you trace back stories of some, you wonder where in the world they come up with their stuff. But if you read all the books you can, i feel the real story comes foreward.