Harmony or Hostility?

[George Antonios]

Where are you guys getting all this insight into Augustine's theology? I've just started reading some of his writing, I'm in "The Confessions" currently. I find him hard to read, all over the place, and very "Catholic" so far. It does look like a lot of modern Calvinists are stretching it to mold Augustine into what we would call a "Calvinist" but it's just as much of a stretch to make it seem like he was a Baptist. It's almost like he was some kind of a Catholic Bishop or something.

You're right. Augustine would not be allowed to teach SS in most Baptist Churches. But Calvin was 100% into Augustine and got his Determinism from him, which he in turn ported over from his former Manichaean Gnosticism.

 

[DaveXR650]

From what I've read so far, I am most impressed with Augustine in that he tried to have a close personal relationship with God, and wrote about it constantly. He reminds me so far of David, in the Bible. He had very little access to good scripture translations and had to rely on a chance meeting with someone who knew something or gave him a book. He really seemed to try to walk by faith in whatever light he had. I do get the impression from what little I've read so far that he did indeed believe in a strong sovereignty of God. I don't know he believed that all events were predestined but I noticed he attributed every good thing that came to him, whether a fragment of new scripture, a book, or a profitable meeting with a helpful theologian, he attributed these totally to God himself. The fact that we as moderns, tend to have to set up a diametrically opposite model, where we either have to believe that if we give all honor and glory to God for everything we are too deterministic, or we have to reserve some credit for ourselves. It may say more about our modern mindset that about his Manichaean influence.

Do you George, or anybody, know of any good short cut explanations of Augustine in book form or on-line? I find the Confessions very tedious, to be honest.

 

[George Antonios]

From what I've read so far, I am most impressed with Augustine in that he tried to have a close personal relationship with God, and wrote about it constantly. He reminds me so far of David, in the Bible. He had very little access to good scripture translations and had to rely on a chance meeting with someone who knew something or gave him a book. He really seemed to try to walk by faith in whatever light he had. I do get the impression from what little I've read so far that he did indeed believe in a strong sovereignty of God. I don't know he believed that all events were predestined but I noticed he attributed every good thing that came to him, whether a fragment of new scripture, a book, or a profitable meeting with a helpful theologian, he attributed these totally to God himself. The fact that we as moderns, tend to have to set up a diametrically opposite model, where we either have to believe that if we give all honor and glory to God for everything we are too deterministic, or we have to reserve some credit for ourselves. It may say more about our modern mindset that about his Manichaean influence.

Do you George, or anybody, know of any good short cut explanations of Augustine in book form or on-line? I find the Confessions very tedious, to be honest.

Augustine is a bore to read. I can down a 1,000 page book in 2 weeks but I've been reading "The City of God" since 2005.
I would not read anyone else's summary. When it comes to early commentators, personally, I prefer to read them myself.
Augustine was free will, like every one else, until he shifted. So you will read both sides with him.
The seminal book on that issue is, of course, Ken Wilson's "The Foundation of Augustinian Calvinism".
https://www.amazon.com/Foundation-Augustinian-Calvinism-Ken-Wilson-ebook/dp/B07VTS48L6

 

[canadyjd]

No one before Augustine in the 5th century interpreted any verse Calvinistically. Just saying.

I disagree. I believe all of the Apostles and most of the early Church understood and embraced the doctrines of grace.

It was the distortions of doctrine that came later that led many astray into a false understanding of grace (descended through a priesthood), salvation (dispensed through a priesthood,) perseverance (connected to the church and the priesthood), election (only through the priesthood), and so in.

The proclamation of the gospel, which is necessary for salvation, was replaced (in the West), by a hierarchy of priests, ceremonies, man made works that were suppose to bring people into a right relationship with God.

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

…..

Now if you care to quote a church father that expounded Calvinism before Augustine, by all means, go ahead. Until then, the point stands.

The Apostle Paul, pretty much any of his letters.

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

I disagree. I believe all of the Apostles and most of the early Church understood and embraced the doctrines of grace.

It was the distortions of doctrine that came later that led many astray into a false understanding of grace (descended through a priesthood), salvation (dispensed through a priesthood,) perseverance (connected to the church and the priesthood), election (only through the priesthood), and so in.

The proclamation of the gospel, which is necessary for salvation, was replaced (in the West), by a hierarchy of priests, ceremonies, man made works that were suppose to bring people into a right relationship with God.

Peace to you

Our point at hand is simple. You claimed that Calvinism has been the traditional view for 2,000 years

there is no reason to disregard 2000 years of the traditional understanding of scripture

Evidently, this has nothing to do with the apostles since your comment covers 90AD to 2023AD.
As to the "early church", please prove your claim. I pointed out a historical fact, which is yet to be refuted, that no one before Augustine (90 AD - 400AD) interpreted the scriptures Calvinistically.

Your comment against overthrowing

the traditional understanding of scripture

is ironic since Augustine did just that when he adopted a deterministic (Calvinistic) view.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

You're right. Augustine would not be allowed to teach SS in most Baptist Churches. But Calvin was 100% into Augustine and got his Determinism from him, which he in turn ported over from his former Manichaean Gnosticism.

Calvin quoted Augustine more than any other Church Father. However, he wasn't into him "100%"; he took issue with him a number of times.

 

[George Antonios]

Calvin quoted Augustine more than any other Church Father. However, he wasn't into him "100%"; he took issue with him a number of times.

"Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness of satisfaction to myself out of his writings." - A Treatise of the Eternal Predestination of God (John Calvin).
That's why I said he was into him 100%. But ok, he took issue with him a number of times.

Our point at hand, once more, is that Calvin picked up Gnostic Determinism from Augustine who picked it up from his former Manicheanism, and all Gnostic religions, including atheism, are Deterministic.
Here's a famous atheistic physicist arguing that free will is an illusion and that you just reject that notion because you are unwilling to follow the science (sounds familiar?):

The argument above is used by the son of a church member to justify his sins.

No one before Augustine in the 5th century ever understood the scriptures Calvinistically.

Calvinism is Gnostic Fatalism in Christian garb. That's why no early church father before Augustine in the 5th century (the former Gnostic) ever understood the scriptures Calvinistically.

 

[DaveXR650]

Some of the extreme Calvinists on this forum do seem to have some gnostic tendencies mainly because they emphasize the importance of a "higher knowledge" and make it a test of orthodoxy. And they do go so far that they openly state that to believe and repent are off limits as far as telling folks to do it, or stating you must do that in order to be saved.

But Edwards, Owen, Watson, Bunyan, later Calvinists like Ryle, Bonar, and Spurgeon never shied away from calling for immediate repentance and belief of the gospel. You may think they had it wrong in their theology and their explanations of HOW is comes to be that a person gets saved, but you simply cannot make a reasonable case that they were fatalistic. In the predestination they believed in, even at it's strongest, the means were equally predestined with the other events. In other words, even if they believed that Bill was elect from all eternity and would get saved, the fact that George prayed for Bill and went over to his house and invited him to church was also just as ordained. That is different from fatalism.

If you have a church member appeal to you on grounds of fatalism and claims it's "Calvinistic" give them a copy of Owen's "On the Mortification of Sin". For those putting off belief every single Puritan has a sermon with the title of "Heaven Taken By Storm" or "Forcing Your Way into the Kingdom", or something similar. They said YOU better believe, and NOW and that you must improve any conviction or enlightening you experience because not to do so could mean the ruin of your soul and you would be to blame. That doesn't sound like fatalism to me.

 

[canadyjd]

Our point at hand is simple. You claimed that Calvinism has been the traditional view for 2,000 years

Evidently, this has nothing to do with the apostles since your comment covers 90AD to 2023AD.
As to the "early church", please prove your claim. I pointed out a historical fact, which is yet to be refuted, that no one before Augustine (90 AD - 400AD) interpreted the scriptures Calvinistically.

Your comment against overthrowing


is ironic since Augustine did just that when he adopted a deterministic (Calvinistic) view.

First, please show me where I stated Calvinism has been the traditional view for 2000 years?

“Calvinism” appeared in the 16th century, during the reformation, but it reflected the truth held by Christians throughout history because it was based on the teachings of scripture.

My point is the early church had no problem understanding the concepts of “God’s grace’” in salvation. They are clear in the teachings of Jesus and reflected in the writings of the Apostles. Christians in the early church understood it just fine.

Men and women have dedicated their lives to understanding Kone Greek, not only used in Biblical writings but also in secular writings of the day.

They are true scholars, willing to have their work peer reviewed in professional journals.

What Van has done is look in a Greek lexicon, assessed all the possible meanings of words linked to verses supporting “Calvinism” and simply made no attempt to consider context, normal uses in biblical and extra biblical text.. all the many decades of scholarship done by the true experts in the biblical languages and said let’s interpret this word/phrase differently than all the experts have.

If he really believes he is on to something new, he should write a paper and submit it to a professional journal for peer review.

Peace to you

 

[JonC]

From what I've read so far, I am most impressed with Augustine in that he tried to have a close personal relationship with God, and wrote about it constantly. He reminds me so far of David, in the Bible. He had very little access to good scripture translations and had to rely on a chance meeting with someone who knew something or gave him a book. He really seemed to try to walk by faith in whatever light he had. I do get the impression from what little I've read so far that he did indeed believe in a strong sovereignty of God. I don't know he believed that all events were predestined but I noticed he attributed every good thing that came to him, whether a fragment of new scripture, a book, or a profitable meeting with a helpful theologian, he attributed these totally to God himself. The fact that we as moderns, tend to have to set up a diametrically opposite model, where we either have to believe that if we give all honor and glory to God for everything we are too deterministic, or we have to reserve some credit for ourselves. It may say more about our modern mindset that about his Manichaean influence.

Do you George, or anybody, know of any good short cut explanations of Augustine in book form or on-line? I find the Confessions very tedious, to be honest.

There are many Christisns who were devoted to studying God's Word, even though they disagreed theologically.

Augustine taught, for example, that Christ died as a representative for humanity and thereby defeated Satan (perhaps the first substitutionary atonement theory). John Wesley taught penal substitution theory. Ireanus taught Recapitulation. Anselm taught a satisfaction theory.

Whitefield was a Calvinist. Wesley was anti-Calvinist.

But they all had hearts after God.

My question - and one we should all ask of ourselves - is why we desire to study these men and their beliefs? Do we want to construct how theologies grew out of previous ones? Do we want to find a different type of kinship with those men? Or, are we just curious?

 

[JonC]

First, please show me where I stated Calvinism has been the traditional view for 2000 years?

“Calvinism” appeared in the 16th century, during the reformation, but it reflected the truth held by Christians throughout history because it was based on the teachings of scripture.

My point is the early church had no problem understanding the concepts of “God’s grace’” in salvation. They are clear in the teachings of Jesus and reflected in the writings of the Apostles. Christians in the early church understood it just fine.

Men and women have dedicated their lives to understanding Kone Greek, not only used in Biblical writings but also in secular writings of the day.

They are true scholars, willing to have their work peer reviewed in professional journals.

What Van has done is look in a Greek lexicon, assessed all the possible meanings of words linked to verses supporting “Calvinism” and simply made no attempt to consider context, normal uses in biblical and extra biblical text.. all the many decades of scholarship done by the true experts in the biblical languages and said let’s interpret this word/phrase differently than all the experts have.

If he really believes he is on to something new, he should write a paper and submit it to a professional journal for peer review.

Peace to you

I'd say the issue is Calvinism did not reflect previously held views in regards to what makes Calvinism distinct among contemporary views today.

Often people look back into earlier writings and exaggerate (I doubt intentionally) via assumption what those earlier authors wrote of their faith.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Some of the extreme Calvinists on this forum do seem to have some gnostic tendencies mainly because they emphasize the importance of a "higher knowledge" and make it a test of orthodoxy. And they do go so far that they openly state that to believe and repent are off limits as far as telling folks to do it, or stating you must do that in order to be saved.

But Edwards, Owen, Watson, Bunyan, later Calvinists like Ryle, Bonar, and Spurgeon never shied away from calling for immediate repentance and belief of the gospel. You may think they had it wrong in their theology and their explanations of HOW is comes to be that a person gets saved, but you simply cannot make a reasonable case that they were fatalistic. In the predestination they believed in, even at it's strongest, the means were equally predestined with the other events. In other words, even if they believed that Bill was elect from all eternity and would get saved, the fact that George prayed for Bill and went over to his house and invited him to church was also just as ordained. That is different from fatalism.

If you have a church member appeal to you on grounds of fatalism and claims it's "Calvinistic" give them a copy of Owen's "On the Mortification of Sin". For those putting off belief every single Puritan has a sermon with the title of "Heaven Taken By Storm" or "Forcing Your Way into the Kingdom", or something similar. They said YOU better believe, and NOW and that you must improve any conviction or enlightening you experience because not to do so could mean the ruin of your soul and you would be to blame. That doesn't sound like fatalism to me.

Well said! Calvinism is absolutely not fatalism or 'determinism.' It would be great if people would take the trouble to read 'Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ' by John Bunyan, which is his exposition of John 6:37, or 'The Jerusalem Sinner Saved' by the same author, subtitled 'Good News for the Vilest of Men.' Both books are available very cheaply as 'Puritan Paperbacks' from Banner of Truth.
The reason why there is more hostility than harmony on this board is that far too many people have no idea what Calvinism is, and some of them seem to make it a badge of honour not to have read any Christian books (in contradiction of Proverbs 11:14; Ecclesiastes 12:11; Jeremiah 6:16).

 

[JonC]

Well said! Calvinism is absolutely not fatalism or 'determinism.' It would be great if people would take the trouble to read 'Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ' by John Bunyan, which is his exposition of John 6:37, or 'The Jerusalem Sinner Saved' by the same author, subtitled 'Good News for the Vilest of Men.' Both books are available very cheaply as 'Puritan Paperbacks' from Banner of Truth.
The reason why there is more hostility than harmony on this board is that far too many people have no idea what Calvinism is, and some of them seem to make it a badge of honour not to have read any Christian books (in contradiction of Proverbs 11:14; Ecclesiastes 12:11; Jeremiah 6:16).

Determinism is defined as human contegent events being predetermined outside of the human will.

A shorter definition (Merriam Websters) is simply a belief in predestination.

So maybe it depends on the Calvinist. The context would be salvation. If a Calvinist believes men are predestined to salvation, that their faith is a result of God's work rather than human will, then they hold to determinism.

Determinism is simply tge idea that events are determined before they occur rather than being contingent on the will of men.

While in no way, shape, or forum would I advocate Cslvinism (I hold Jefferson's opinion of Cslvinism, and he wasn't even a Christian), I do believe in determinism (in the simple definition).

How are you defining determinism?

 

[Marooncat79]

Our point at hand is simple. You claimed that Calvinism has been the traditional view for 2,000 years



Evidently, this has nothing to do with the apostles since your comment covers 90AD to 2023AD.
As to the "early church", please prove your claim. I pointed out a historical fact, which is yet to be refuted, that no one before Augustine (90 AD - 400AD) interpreted the scriptures Calvinistically.

Your comment against overthrowing


is ironic since Augustine did just that when he adopted a deterministic (Calvinistic) view.

Please read the golden chain of redemption in Roman’s

 

[DaveXR650]

How are you defining determinism?

Basically it would be like if it's determined that Bill is going to die at age 63 it will happen no matter what Bill does. And it's possible that the only reason is that "it is written". The cause may be nothing, or it may be from a god. But there is nothing you can do about it. That's fatalism.

In Calvinistic determinism it may be determined that Bill is going to die at age 63. Bill finds out that he has horrible cholesterol numbers at age 43 when he goes into the the ER for chest pain. He discovers he's a walking time bomb and decides to loose weight, eat right and get in shape. He does end up dying at age 63. But Bill's changes in diet and so on truly and actually had an effect on lengthening his life. His choices were real, the effects were real, and his will was changed by forces and motivations outside himself. But he was choosing to do what he did. That would be more like a form of Calvinistic determination. You might say so what, he died at 63 still. Yes, but in this case his actions were real, had real effects, and his death was in the perfect will of God himself. There is a difference.

The question for the non determinist is this. Does God have foreknowledge of events? If the event happens did God allow it to happen? Could it happen differently once God knew it was going to happen without being outside of God's foreknowledge? Then was it not determined to happen? What really is the difference? I don't care if someone wants to reject Calvinist determinism. It is not related in any way to salvation, thank God. But sometimes free willers act like Calvinists are idiots who have overlooked some obvious point of logic when we are all in the same boat with these difficulties. It is humbling.

Bottom line, the only philosophy that is completely within our human faculties is either a random future not determined at all or we go on complete determinism. Anything in between is going to be hard for us to grasp.

 

[George Antonios]

First, please show me where I stated Calvinism has been the traditional view for 2000 years?

followed by

“Calvinism” [...] reflected the truth held by Christians throughout history

As to Van and what he did or did not do, that is irrelevant to my point.
My point remains: Calvinistic interpretation was a 5th century novelty in the writings of the church fathers.
That is a historical fact. Again, if you contend otherwise, then submit evidence to the contrary.

 

[George Antonios]

Please read the golden chain of redemption in Roman’s

Please read the Pauline epistles.

 

[canadyjd]

followed by

As to Van and what he did or did not do, that is irrelevant to my point.
My point remains: Calvinistic interpretation was a 5th century novelty in the writings of the church fathers.
That is a historical fact. Again, if you contend otherwise, then submit evidence to the contrary.

As I have already stated, the scriptures teach the doctrines of grace. Whoever embraced that truth throughout history was not teaching something new. They were teaching what Jesus thought and what His Apostles taught.

The only evidence I need is the scriptures themselves. It is very plainly stated.

Peace to you

 

[Marooncat79]

Please read the Pauline epistles.

Paul wrote Romans as an instruction regarding the Doctrine of salvation

Roman’s 10: “Who can they call upon whom they have not believed”?

that’s not just a rhetorical question

the heart must be changed before we will ever call upon God

again in Romans “there is none that seeks after God”

and Jeremiah 17:9 “the heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it”?

and finally again, read Paul’s Golden Chain argument in Romans.