Can we conclude that Calvinism is a relatively NEW doctrine?

[HeirofSalvation]

Tertullian...interesting fellow! Wasnt he the originator of traducianism, the doctrine of transmission of the soul from parent to their offspring? & didnt he convert to Montanism later in his life?

He also was a key Theologian arguing against the heresy of infant Baptism and other errors held dear by the likes of Augustine and Calvin, and indeed, even Pelagius.....What of it?

Hmmmmm, credible.

On some levels, presumably he was, on others, perhaps not...but Skan's argument isn't exactly an argument from authority...his argument is essentially that the earlier Church Fathers would be those most closely linked to the earliest teachings of the Apostles. It stands plausibly to reason that the earliest Church Fathers would have a more distinct knowledge and appreciation for the original doctrines as expounded by them.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

He also was a key Theologian arguing against the heresy of infant Baptism and other errors held dear by the likes of Augustine and Calvin, and indeed, even Pelagius.....What of it?

On some levels, presumably he was, on others, perhaps not...but Skan's argument isn't exactly an argument from authority...his argument is essentially that the earlier Church Fathers would be those most closely linked to the earliest teachings of the Apostles. It stands plausibly to reason that the earliest Church Fathers would have a more distinct knowledge and appreciation for the original doctrines as expounded by them.

Unless some of them were nuts to begin with. Then your rational could be thrown out the window.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Things like this drive me nuts. You slyly try to negate and dismiss the quote and the theologian behind it, and when you have it re-wrapped in the fallacy it came in and handed back to you, instead of conceding the point you then resort to attacking the poster.

Oh, and its couldn't care less. If you can care less you care.

"Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt"

Truly....I dont. But you should also consider taking your own advise about being a fool.

 

[12strings]

Loraine Boettner
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. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination and perhaps also that of God’s absolute Foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will.​

What this sounds like to me, is that this issue is similar to the issue of men losing their salvation, which one can also quote Early fathers saying things on both sides of the issue. In other words, they believed God chose people, and that People had to choose God, and that the Bible taught both, and that both were true, and they couldn't reconcile them...As Boetner said, It was not a topic of special study, since they were busy being killed. It also sounds like, from the quotes offered, that while some specifically DID want to argue against the idea that God caused some people to repent, others were not so specific.

One can easily find quotes from church fathers that sound like a Christian can lose their salvation (and some definitely believed they could), but one could also find quotes from John Piper that sound as though a believer can lose their salvation...

Also, It seems Boetner also sees some early father's denying God's foreknowledge...which again points to the difficulty of basing our beliefs on those of the early fathers.

 

[Skandelon]

What this sounds like to me, is that this issue is similar to the issue of men losing their salvation, which one can also quote Early fathers saying things on both sides of the issue. In other words, they believed God chose people, and that People had to choose God, and that the Bible taught both, and that both were true, and they couldn't reconcile them...As Boetner said, It was not a topic of special study, since they were busy being killed. It also sounds like, from the quotes offered, that while some specifically DID want to argue against the idea that God caused some people to repent, others were not so specific.

Boettner clearly believed they affirmed a synergistic approach and would have denied the Reformed doctrine of Predestination. I agree with his assessment based upon all I have read to this point. I've only touched the tip of the iceberg thus far as to the number of ECF's quotes which specifically undermine the foundational claims of Reformed doctrine.

One can easily find quotes from church fathers that sound like a Christian can lose their salvation (and some definitely believed they could)

In one since they could...'those who have gone out from us were never really of us' affirms this. As from the human perspective alone one appears to fall away or turn from that which they appeared to once belong. Assurance is only attained in continued relationship...

Also, It seems Boetner also sees some early father's denying God's foreknowledge...which again points to the difficulty of basing our beliefs on those of the early fathers.

You will need to point me to the quote he is speaking of because I think he simply means denying foreknowledge from the Reformed perspective (foreordination). Nevertheless, as I said before, the goal here is not to defend every view of the ECFs. Like scholars today, they all have various nuanced views and perspectives on many different issues.

The goal is simply to evaluate two possible interpretations of the original authors regarding free will, election and predestination by looking at the works of those closest to the original authors. For, I think any objective reader would acknowledge that when two viable interpretations are being presented, a look at the first students of those who proposed the original views could certainly be helpful.

I believe they are very helpful. Very helpful indeed.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Hi, Icon:

Not really.....DHK speaks to this.

Yes...Really...DHK did not refute nor deny Skan's initial post nor his argument. DHK merely suggested a generalized warning against deriving one's doctrines principally from the writings of others and then secondly from Scripture. But, DHK in no way either "confirmed nor denied" Skan's initial OP, or it's accurracy.

This desperate attempt to re-write history is in vain.

It is not desperate....Skan is actually merely positing an idea, and utilizing PRIMARY sources (that is the direct quotes of the authors themselves).... to support it. In no way can that in any objective universe be considered "re-writing". Skan suggested a simple idea namely:
The position of the early/earliest Church Fathers...

He backed it with their Direct quotes from their own pens......
Another way of putting it would be like this:
If I were to write an historical treatise on the battle of waterloo......my BEST source would be the logs from:
1.) Napoleon Bonaparte
2.) Arthur Wellington

Any direct quote from their own reports and logs is known (to an historian) as a "primary source".
Skan gave you a "primary source" about the beliefs of early church Fathers.....their own "Officer's logs".....
So, which Historian taught you that the use of what is called a "primary source" is an insufficient or ill-advised source of knowledge?

Augustine is one of the more visible of the so-called ECF.....and because his ideas were closer than many of his peers he comes under attack.

Ideas were "closer"????
"Closer" to what?
The "truth"?
1.) He is among the latest of the earlier quoted ancients to begin with.....
2.) He is notably BEYOND heretical on numerous Theological issues
3.) To suggest that he is being "attacked" (false to begin with) only because you appreciate a particular view he holds is merely "question-begging". In order to make the statement you just made, you merely must assume the accuracy of the most relevant Soteriological views, and then jump to the conclusion that he is "under attack" because of his proximity to truth. That is not in any way a reasonable train of thought.

You looking back at history from a distance

"Looking back at History" is, already, by definition........."from a distance"...

with your obvious agenda,

It is irrelevant whether he possesses an "agenda" or not actually......Don't you???
Should we all ignore every post you make merely because you have an obvious "agenda"? You do don't you? So do I.

Icon.....if a mathematician has a pre-set "agenda" to demonstrate that it is in fact the case that 2+2=4........his detractors are ill-advised to ignore his arguments merely because he already possesses an "agenda".

are not proving anything at all.

"Proving" isn't, strictyly speaking, what he is trying to do....but nonetheless, you are acting as though he is trying to "dis-prove" Calvinism or something else......He is only debating what were, in fact, the positions held by the earliest of the ancients......and he used the primary sources to do so. That is valid.

Skan stated a paraphrase like this:
1.) "The earliest of Church Fathers believed this"........
2.) "Here are their direct quotes from their own pens to demonstrate it."

This is a perfectly VALID form of argument.

How many people could even read?

1.) That is actually irrelevant to begin with
2.) As many, if not plausibly FAR MORE (if historians are to be believed)....than were literate during the early Rennaissance Period in which the teachings of Calvin were extant.
If, you are of the opinion that the ancients were (as a general populace) less literate than say......those who existed during the penning of the 1689 London Baptist Confession......than you are sadly lacking in knowledge of History.

How many people had scriptures in their hands?

Not many.....but, then neither did SO VERY MANY (actually literate people anyway) yet quite have it in their hands in Calvin's day; although granted it was more physically available......But then again, as above, this is ALSO irrelevant, inasmuch as Skan is not debating the beliefs of a populace writ large, but rather particular Theologians (whom we assume already possess both literacy and access to written Scripture).....
In fact, if you wanted to continue this particular line of argument farther......You would find yourself debating against Church Fathers (many from North Africa) who actually had Access to something called the "Great Library of Alexandria"........which is essentially a veritable MECCA consisting of literally HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of ancient documents never again possessed post the Muslim invasion of Omar.

How much tradition was around already?

This argument makes no sense........ to begin with:
1.) The "traditions" extant would presumably be, "traditions" MOST CLOSELY related to the Apostles themselves, and thus FAR MORE respectable than those who came (just to pick a number at random) say......1500 years later. When one considers that Irenaeus (for example) was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Beloved himself....his views, and "traditional" teachings are note-worthy at least.

2.) Secondly........One should probably assume that there were FAR MORE mere "traditions" in later periods than those of the earliest Church fathers....Like say, when oh, to pick a Theologian at random: John Calvin<---[correction, lawyer actually] or say, John Gil, or say Lorraine Boettner et al. And Yes, even Jacobus Arminius.

How many other errors were being dealt with?

Many errors were being dealt with.....but which particular "error" do you speak of??????/ Are we "question-begging" again?

Unless I misunderstand your post, this is what you have already done:
1.) Suggest that Skan was "re-writing" history, which implies that the earliest Church Fathers WEREN'T committed to a synergistic view of Salvation.....
2.) Suggest that Skan's quoted Church Fathers (who were synergistic) WERE then committed to it, and you are implying that they were thus merely posing one of several innummerable errors.......
Please tell us what you are trying to say:
1.) Is Skan rewriting history and they "weren't" synergists?
2.) Is Skan accurate with his representation of history, and they were merely erroneous positions. You can't have it both ways, Icon.

A systematic study of scripture requires a lot of time.It's not like they went online and googled everything.

Neither could Augustine, Gil, Boettner, Warfield, Spurgeon...ad nauseum, in fact, the earliest Church fathers were possessed of as many, if not more, tools than the later Theologians were.

The scripture did not even have chapter and verse divisions until 1550.

A sad fact sometimes, that they were ever incorporated......in fact.....Calvinists (IMO) would understand Romans chapter 9 better if they read it WITHOUT those horrific divisions and followed the argument from chapter 8-11..........It would make sense if you did.

You cannot show what they did or did not believe

That is precisely what he is doing, and from their own mouths. If I were to copy/paste your own posts 1000 years from now for the knowledge of future generations, could they not conclude what you believed??? If not....then you should possibly be more articulate.

pretend what you will.

That is unnecessary......Skan is "pretending" nothing...merely asserting an argument (about the beliefs of early Church fathers) and backing it up with quotes directly from............Early Church fathers.

Because you have not made your case at all.

Yeah..........he has.
What's yours?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Unless some of them were nuts to begin with. Then your rational could be thrown out the window.

What???? "They who"?
did you mean "rationale"?

 

[12strings]

Quickly, since I have to run (and by run, I mean walk 30 feet to my car and drive)...

Boettner clearly believed they affirmed a synergistic approach and would have denied the Reformed doctrine of Predestination. I agree with his assessment based upon all I have read to this point. I've only touched the tip of the iceberg thus far as to the number of ECF's quotes which specifically undermine the foundational claims of Reformed doctrine.

I would say Boetner is probably correct for many, if not most of the early fathers. I can't say ALL, because some quotes I have seen seem to imply otherwise.

In one since they could...'those who have gone out from us were never really of us' affirms this. As from the human perspective alone one appears to fall away or turn from that which they appeared to once belong. Assurance is only attained in continued relationship...

Not really the point of the thread, but my point was that it DOES seem many early father's SEEMED to believe a true Christian could lose their salvation...that fact they they DID believe that does not undermine my belief that a true Christian will not ultimately lose, or even voluntarily give up, their salvation.

You will need to point me to the quote he is speaking of because I think he simply means denying foreknowledge from the Reformed perspective (foreordination). Nevertheless, as I said before, the goal here is not to defend every view of the ECFs. Like scholars today, they all have various nuanced views and perspectives on many different issues.

I was refering to the quote you gave. Foreknowledge is different than foreordination...if they were the same, why did he use both words? Again my point is that Early father's can be wrong.

 

[Skandelon]

I would say Boetner is probably correct for many, if not most of the early fathers. I can't say ALL, because some quotes I have seen seem to imply otherwise.

I welcome you to present the quotes for consideration as that is the purpose of this thread. I'll attempt to deal with them as objectively as I can if you will do the same.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Originally Posted by webdog
Oh, and its couldn't care less. If you can care less you care.

On your behalf alone........I will sacrifice to the gods every day for the rest of my life.........this cliche' has been driving me crazy for years!!!:laugh::laugh::wavey:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What???? "They who"?
did you mean "rationale"?

Yea right....if it has ale with it, so much the better! :love2::laugh:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Yea right....if it has ale with it, so much the better!

:love2::laugh:

What???

This was your statement:

Then your rational could be thrown out the window.

That sentence or dependent clause/fragment is non-sense.

I ask you if you meant.....
"rationale"
A perfectly reasonable question inasmuch as it would make that string of words/sentence make sense:
and you respond thus:

Yea right....if it has ale with it, so much the better!

What, if anything, are you talking about??? Your thoughts are dis-jointed and incomplete.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What???

This was your statement:

That sentence or dependent clause/fragment is non-sense.

I ask you if you meant.....
"rationale"
A perfectly reasonable question inasmuch as it would make that string of words/sentence make sense:
and you respond thus:

What, if anything, are you talking about??? Your thoughts are dis-jointed and incomplete.

A yea....so what? Just cuz you dont get it? Am I supposed to draw you a picture?!? Grow up man, you are now in BB land.....figure it out.:laugh:

 

[Aaron]

A survey of the teachings of the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) reveals that they promoted a more 'synergistic' approach to salvation and the concept of free will (quotes to be provided). What is evident (to scholars from both perspectives) is that Augustine was the first of the ECFs to teach the more Reformed ideas (not until 400 AD). And even Augustine admitted he didn't know Greek, nor did he seem to consistently support the Calvinistic concept of Limited Atonement or Perseverance.

Does knowing that the immediate disciples of the apostles and their closest converts didn't come away with a Calvinistic understanding of the text affect the way you feel about these teachings?

If not, why not?

There is nothing new under the sun. Since before Adam fell there has been the Truth, and there has been the Lie.

Naturally, one holding a particular view cannot concede that his was an innovation and still maintain its truthfulness, unless, like CBT et al, one has a Darwinian view of the Church and its doctrines. So, it's only natural that Scandal would attempt to rewrite history.

The Truth is Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. Christ's words about Himself and His disciples is the truth about the Truth.

The Lie is "Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Which doctrine is closer to "ye shall be as gods?" The one that says no man may come to God except God draw him, or the one that says a man may draw himself to God?

[Note: Scandal will attempt to straddle the fence by redefining "draw," "power," "spirit," etc.]

 

[HeirofSalvation]

A yea....so what? Just cuz you dont get it?

Nobody can "get" a statement which is non-sense, and, as I said before:

Then your rational could be thrown out the window.

Is non-sense
Again....did you mean to say "rationale"?

Am I supposed to draw you a picture?!?

Inasmuch as your command of the English language has been insufficient thus far.....that might be helpful.

Grow up man, you are now in BB land

.....
I can see that.......and I am summarily unimpressed by much of what I see.

figure it out.:laugh:

I am actually having more fun challenging you to explain your meaning in English. Your picture idea might be helpful, since commonly understood language has been inefficient thus far.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Nobody can "get" a statement which is non-sense, and, as I said before:

Is non-sense
Again....did you mean to say "rationale"?

Inasmuch as your command of the English language has been insufficient thus far.....that might be helpful.
.....
I can see that.......and I am summarily unimpressed by much of what I see.

I am actually having more fun challenging you to explain your meaning in English. Your picture idea might be helpful, since commonly understood language has been inefficient thus far.

Unreadable & wince-inducing! (words you could have used Shakespeare):laugh: Perhaps punishable by banishment from this forum! PLEASE!!!!:laugh:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Unreadable & wince-inducing! (words you could have used Shakespeare):

This verbiage also makes no sense.

Perhaps punishable by banishment from this forum! PLEASE!!!!:laugh:

What crime have you witnessed which merits banishment from BB on this thread?
Are you angry? Or merely posing jokes I don't get? I would like you to make your case for my banishment to the powers that be...........Publically would be preferred.
In what way have I broken the rules?
Nobody has written words worthy of Shakespeare. Don't insult the man.

 

[webdog]

Truly....I dont. But you should also consider taking your own advise about being a fool.

You don't what? You said "I can care less". This means you care. Maybe you meant to say "I can't care less" meaning you don't care at all...but we will never know given the hard time you are having between rational and rationale. Wouldnt be so quick to call anyone a fool.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You don't what? You said "I can care less". This means you care. Maybe you meant to say "I can't care less" meaning you don't care at all...but we will never know given the hard time you are having between rational and rationale. Wouldnt be so quick to call anyone a fool.

OK, got it.....so let me clarify this for you so you finally have it.

I dont give a ....fig. Hope this gives you understanding. Now as to calling someone a fool, it was you who started that load of baloney.....so, just saying.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This verbiage also makes no sense.

Splendid....now we are getting somewhere.