Early church fathers and free will

[Skandelon]

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?

I do take that in the absolute sense. Absolutely NO MAN could come to Christ and be taught by him except those the Father gave to HIM. Jews couldn't come to him because they were being blinded from the truth and the Gentiles hadn't been sent the truth yet (...first to the Jew and then the Gentiles)

The ONLY MEN who could come to Christ were those who were drawn to him. Those reserved from the Hardening process and clearly revealed the truth. Notice all of them are JEWS, so as to fulfill the prophecy, and these are the Remnant reserved for a nobel purpose....to take the message of reconciliation to the world!

John 17 expresses this distinction well:

Here he prays for the Remnant of Israel, his chosen ones:
6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

Here he prays for the world to believe through their message:
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.

 

[Andy T.]

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.

Really? I did not know this. Learning so much in this thread.

 

[J.D.]

I do take that in the absolute sense. Absolutely NO MAN could come to Christ and be taught by him except those the Father gave to HIM. Jews couldn't come to him because they were being blinded from the truth and the Gentiles hadn't been sent the truth yet (...first to the Jew and then the Gentiles)

The ONLY MEN who could come to Christ were those who were drawn to him. Those reserved from the Hardening process and clearly revealed the truth. Notice all of them are JEWS, so as to fulfill the prophecy, and these are the Remnant reserved for a nobel purpose....to take the message of reconciliation to the world!

John 17 expresses this distinction well:

Here he prays for the Remnant of Israel, his chosen ones:
6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

Here he prays for the world to believe through their message:
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.

Then we seem to be in agreement. In what way does your post defend the free will position?

 

[Skandelon]

Then we seem to be in agreement. In what way does your post defend the free will position?

Non-Calvinists affirm that God hardened Israel temporarily, giving them eyes that could not see and hears that could not hear, so as to accomplish the crucifixion and the ingrafting of the Gentiles.

This hardened condition is NOT the natural condition of all mankind from birth, otherwise what would be the point in his blinding a man born totally blind?

Paul explains this clearly in Acts 28:

24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

This passage explicitly shows the ability of mankind if they had not become hardened...Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn. This passage shows that this condition is not from birth, it shows that it is unique to the Jews because the Gentiles are not hardened and they "will listen."

 

[J.D.]

Non-Calvinists affirm that God hardened Israel temporarily, giving them eyes that could not see and hears that could not hear, so as to accomplish the crucifixion and the ingrafting of the Gentiles.

This hardened condition is NOT the natural condition of all mankind from birth, otherwise what would be the point in his blinding a man born totally blind?

Paul explains this clearly in Acts 28:

24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

This passage explicitly shows the ability of mankind if they had not become hardened...Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn. This passage shows that this condition is not from birth, it shows that it is unique to the Jews because the Gentiles are not hardened and they "will listen."

So I'm assuming that because you reject Total Depravity and inability, then you believe in libertarian free will. I see the connection.

I've seen your posts on judicial hardening but I'm not sure what your position is on election and predestination. You used to be a Calvinist, right? When you were a Calvinist, did you believe in active reprobation or passive reprobation?

 

[asterisktom]

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.

Your credibility in your first astonishing statement is seriously undercut by your broad assertion in the second. Do you really believe all that about Augustine?

Purgatory goes at least as far back as the Clementine Homilies and also Origen. It is true that Augustine formalized and gave great authority to this doctrine. Your statement is too broad.

It is even more easy to show that infant baptism existed a long time before Augustine. Origen 150 years before Augustine already taught it, saying it was one of the teachings of the apostles. This is historical fact. If I thought you actually cared about knowing the truth on this I would write more than this.

And, no, Total Depravity did not begin with Augustine either.

 

[Skandelon]

So I'm assuming that because you reject Total Depravity and inability, then you believe in libertarian free will. I see the connection.

To be clear, I do affirm the doctrine of Original Sin. I only reject the concept that claims, "Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God..."

I've seen your posts on judicial hardening but I'm not sure what your position is on election and predestination.

Here are my views of election.

Predestination is mentioned in reference to those who already believe. Believers are "predestined to be conformed to Christ's image." And believers are "predestined to be adopted as his sons." Neither of these goals have been accomplished in our lives but if we believe in Christ, God has predetermined that we too will be "adopted as His son and conformed to his image." Hershel Hobbs, author of the Baptist Faith and Message, illustrated this view of predestination by speaking of an airplane that might have a predetermined destination set by the pilot, but that those who "get on board" must freely choose to do so. So, God has predetermined what will become of all who believe, but he has NOT predetermined who will or will not believe.

You used to be a Calvinist, right? When you were a Calvinist, did you believe in active reprobation or passive reprobation?

I liked the explanations Sproul gave on the subject (on double predestination), so I was more on the "passive" side. However, I did recognize the difficulties and accepted them as a "paradox."

 

[J.D.]

Predestination is mentioned in reference to those who already believe. Believers are "predestined to be conformed to Christ's image." And believers are "predestined to be adopted as his sons." Neither of these goals have been accomplished in our lives but if we believe in Christ, God has predetermined that we too will be "adopted as His son and conformed to his image." Hershel Hobbs, author of the Baptist Faith and Message, illustrated this view of predestination by speaking of an airplane that might have a predetermined destination set by the pilot, but that those who "get on board" must freely choose to do so. So, God has predetermined what will become of all who believe, but he has NOT predetermined who will or will not believe.

You know how quickly analogies can break down, right? But I won't go there. I'm not an expert on the SBC or the BF&M, but I'm surprised to learn that Hobbs is the author of it. Maybe a contributor?

I liked the explanations Sproul gave on the subject (on double predestination), so I was more on the "passive" side. However, I did recognize the difficulties and accepted them as a "paradox."

Okay, I was just wondering if you had ever been exposed to the doctrine. Are you aware that active reprobation destroys your argument? And besides that, allowing that passive reprobation is the correct view, judicial hardening still proves that there are some people - perhaps many people - that God is not trying to save. And you have to insert "temporary hardening" into the argument, as the biblical texts do not express it.

Would you agree that there have been some people that were permenantly hardened?

 

[Skandelon]

You know how quickly analogies can break down, right? But I won't go there. I'm not an expert on the SBC or the BF&M, but I'm surprised to learn that Hobbs is the author of it. Maybe a contributor?

Yes, analogies certainly have their weaknesses, but they can help bring understanding to a different perspective. I think HH was the chairman of that committee, but he did write a book with that title too.

Okay, I was just wondering if you had ever been exposed to the doctrine. Are you aware that active reprobation destroys your argument?

How so?

And besides that, allowing that passive reprobation is the correct view, judicial hardening still proves that there are some people - perhaps many people - that God is not trying to save

.
Not so. God has "held out his hand all day" to the Jew, an obstinate and rebellious people. (Rm 10:21) He has been patient with them and longing to gather them under his wings of salvation, but they were unwilling.

They become self hardened in the sense that they grow calloused to the divine revelation after rejecting it for so long, but now while Christ is being made evident and his message of reconciliation is being preached, these ALREADY rebellious people are being judicially blinded from that message for a time. Why? So they won't "see, hear, understand and repent." Why? So God can accomplish the greater work of redemption through their rebellion. They won't crucify Jesus if they believe in him. And God explains through Paul that he must blind the Jews so as to graft in the Gentiles. This blinding is "temporary" and is actually an act of mercy according to Paul in Romans 11. He teaches that by hardening the Jews the Gentiles can come in and cause the Jews to become envious and thus they might be saved. Paul states, "God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he might have mercy on them all."

And you have to insert "temporary hardening" into the argument, as the biblical texts do not express it.

Romans 11:25

Would you agree that there have been some people that were permenantly hardened?

Self hardened? Yes. I explain this distinction here.

Whether God judicially blinds a man and he dies in that blinded condition is not revealed, but if that does occur there still is not a problem in my view, because scripture seems to be clear that God's active use of judicial hardening is only used on those who have already rejected the divine revelation and have grown self hardened. They are already culpable for their condition because of their rebellion to the obvious truth. They are "without excuse" as Paul explains in Romans 1. But, in regard to Israel's judicial hardening I think Paul makes it clear that it is not unto certain condemnation. Read Romans 11:14-25.

 

[pinoybaptist]

guys, guys, this thread has gone this far on a quote, from quotes, from a biased website ?
isn't that hearsay ?

 

[J.D.]

How so?

Let's say that God prevents people from believing through judicial hardening. Then where is thy free will, o ye hardened?

 

[J.D.]

Romans 11:25

So how has envy worked so far in turning the Jews to Christ? Has God's plan for saving Jews failed?

 

[Winman]

Your credibility in your first astonishing statement is seriously undercut by your broad assertion in the second. Do you really believe all that about Augustine?

Purgatory goes at least as far back as the Clementine Homilies and also Origen. It is true that Augustine formalized and gave great authority to this doctrine. Your statement is too broad.

It is even more easy to show that infant baptism existed a long time before Augustine. Origen 150 years before Augustine already taught it, saying it was one of the teachings of the apostles. This is historical fact. If I thought you actually cared about knowing the truth on this I would write more than this.

And, no, Total Depravity did not begin with Augustine either.

I agree purgatory was before Augustine, but he was the one who formulated them into a doctrine and introduced it into the Christian church as the Roman Catholic Church itself says.

It was the role of Augustine, who left so deep an imprint on Christianity and who, in the Middle Ages, was regarded as probably the greatest of all the Christian 'authorities,' to have been the first to introduce a number of ingredients that later went to make up the doctrine of Purgatory....Augustine's importance in the history of Purgatory stems first from the terminology he introduced, which remained current through much of the Middle Ages. There are three key terms, the adjectives purgatorius, temporarius, or temporalis, and transitorius. 'Purgatorius' figured in the phrase 'poenae purgatoriae': I prefer to translate this as 'purgatorial punishments' rather than 'purificatory punishments,' the latter being too precise for Augustine's way of thinking (the phrase occurs in City of God 21:13 and 21:16). We also find tormenta purgatoria, purgatorial torments (in City of God 21:16), and ignis purgatorius, purgatorial fire (in Enchridion 69). Temporarius is used, for example, in the expression poenae temporariae, temporary punishments, which is contrasted with poenae sempiternae, eternal punishments (City of God 21:13). Poenae temporales is found in Erasmus's edition of the City of God (21:26).... (page 61, 63)

 

[quantumfaith]

What was Augustine's, Luther's and Calvin's view of Baptism? Will that help?

Great commentary, concise, articulate and exceedingly relevant to the freely chose causal post.

 

[Skandelon]

Let's say that God prevents people from believing through judicial hardening. Then where is thy free will, o ye hardened?

Scripture clearly teaches that if one freely chooses to ignore the clearly seen and understood revelation of God that He will eventually "give them over to their lusts" and their hearts "will become defiled." It is in this condition that God judicially hardens men so as to accomplish a greater purpose of redemption.

I discuss this further in this post.

 

[quantumfaith]

Alright, I will withdraw that comment.



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 ?



And how did you come to this knowledge ?



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



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.



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 ?



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.

If we were honest, I think that this is in fact what most of us actually do. We have decided our own position and find it much more comforting, spiritually and intellectually to gravitate towards works and writers which support our own thoughts.