Should we put much stock in relatively NEW doctrine?

[steaver]

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. It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out his own salvation. But at last, as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the great truth that salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed irrespective of merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the author in all of its stages. This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians... --Calvinism in History: Before the Reformation by Loraine Boettner
​

Even Boettner, a notable Calvinist, admits the Reformed theological perspective doesn't appear until the 4th century. Does that matter? If not, why not?

We must keep in mind though, Calvinism as a organized practiced theology is not as old as organized freewill practiced as a theology, and, freewill is still the predominant view held by Christians today. This should say something as well.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Is it really true that the early church did not write on Predestination? I think they did, although they wrote AGAINST it. They did not directly say this, as predestination did not really enter their minds. They wrote in support of Free Will which argues against predestination.



There are MANY quotes by early church fathers that disagree with Predestination.

http://www.pfrs.org/calvinism/calvin12.html

I read their stuff....seems like they turned into my childhood denomination: the Church of Christ. Can we not go back further than the ancient church fathers? Can we read what Paul and Peter wrote and find Predestination?

Just asking....

 

[Iconoclast]

Jkdbuck76

Can we read what Paul and Peter wrote and find Predestination?

Just asking...

The early church believed the scriptures as taught.In time false teachers and unsaved persons came , with human, carnal reasoning and philosophy. that was in opposition to these truths.

Peter both explained and warned of this very denial of Paul's writings;

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

We see this On BB everyday as many resist the teaching of election and predestination...they hate the teaching:thumbs:

Oh yes.. they will say they believe it...but what they mean is...let me explain away what the scripture says...and give my own false idea on it ..then believe that,,,instead of the truth.

 

[Revmitchell]

I realize who was being quoted and why it was being quoted. Skandelon was not quoting him to support Calvinism but to introduce a discussion against Calvinism.

It is a ridiculous basis for discussion as it proves nothing, one way or the other.

It apparently works pretty good to hack off Calvinists though.

 

[Rippon]

Never mind.

 

[The Biblicist]

It apparently works pretty good to hack off Calvinists though.

How do you figure that? It is a moot argument as many doctrines were not special focus of attention until centuries after the New Testament was written. So why even introduce it as a point of debate???

 

[annsni]

I didn't know that it was a relatively new doctrine. I grew up learning free-will and had a very difficult time when I studied the Scriptures on my own - coming face to face with the truth of God's sovereignty. I kept thinking that I couldn't be reading what I was reading and trying to fit it into my already understood theology. It wasn't from someone's teaching or from me reading books or anything. It came straight from Scripture. So since it was written about in the first century, I'd say it's not "relatively new".

 

[Skandelon]

I didn't know that it was a relatively new doctrine. I grew up learning free-will and had a very difficult time when I studied the Scriptures on my own - coming face to face with the truth of God's sovereignty. I kept thinking that I couldn't be reading what I was reading and trying to fit it into my already understood theology. It wasn't from someone's teaching or from me reading books or anything. It came straight from Scripture. So since it was written about in the first century, I'd say it's not "relatively new".

Well, I'm asking about the interpretation of those texts and many very intelligent linguists and scholars on both sides of this debate make some very strong cases for their perspective. Given that the Calvinistic interpretation of individual predestination wasn't introduced until the 4th century SHOULD give us some clue as how those closest to the apostles understood what they meant.

Anyone who has moved from one culture into another and learned a new language knows without any doubt how much meaning is lost in translation, not only from the words themselves, but from the cultural connotations associated with those words.

1st century greeks were more tribal or corporate thinkers, than individualistic (western) thinkers. Why does that matter? Because it speaks to the intent of the author, and though you might not believe me because of my apparent bias, I can assure you that a strong understanding of the original greek culture FAR more supports the corporate interpretation of election as taught in the text.

 

[Revmitchell]

How do you figure that? It is a moot argument as many doctrines were not special focus of attention until centuries after the New Testament was written. So why even introduce it as a point of debate???

Your reaction on this thread alone is example enough.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, I'm asking about the interpretation of those texts and many very intelligent linguists and scholars on both sides of this debate make some very strong cases for their perspective. Given that the Calvinistic interpretation of individual predestination wasn't introduced until the 4th century SHOULD give us some clue as how those closest to the apostles understood what they meant.

Anyone who has moved from one culture into another and learned a new language knows without any doubt how much meaning is lost in translation, not only from the words themselves, but from the cultural connotations associated with those words.

1st century greeks were more tribal or corporate thinkers, than individualistic (western) thinkers. Why does that matter? Because it speaks to the intent of the author, and though you might not believe me because of my apparent bias, I can assure you that a strong understanding of the original greek culture FAR more supports the corporate interpretation of election as taught in the text.

Interesting that the Holy Spirit Himself had Paul write this to us in the doctrine of individual election of the believer in Chrsit, isn't it?

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Jkdbuck76


The early church believed the scriptures as taught.In time false teachers and unsaved persons came , with human, carnal reasoning and philosophy. that was in opposition to these truths.

--------

We see this On BB everyday as many resist the teaching of election and predestination...they hate the teaching:thumbs:

Oh yes.. they will say they believe it...but what they mean is...let me explain away what the scripture says...and give my own false idea on it ..then believe that,,,instead of the truth.

i figured that if i set up the pins, you'd knock em over.

 

[Iconoclast]

i figured that if i set up the pins, you'd knock em over.

And.....you were correct.So was Peter....what about Pauls writing was hard to be understood. Over it was grace and law......The church. ....and the doctrines of grace..

 

[Yeshua1]

And.....you were correct.So was Peter....what about Pauls writing was hard to be understood. Over it was grace and law......The church. ....and the doctrines of grace..

We must accept that the doctrines of Election/predestination/Sin/etc came to us from God thru divine revealtion/inspiration, so problems happen when we want to try to outthink Him in it!

 

[OldRegular]

Scripture tells us:

Romans 3:10-18
10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15. Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16. Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17. And the way of peace have they not known:
18. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

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.

Given the above Scripture and the insistence in your quote on the absolute freewill of man does that in itself dictate that the Doctrine of Sovereign Election and Grace is necessary and true?

 

[Yeshua1]

Scripture tells us:

Romans 3:10-18
10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15. Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16. Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17. And the way of peace have they not known:
18. There is no fear of God before their eyes.



Given the above Scripture and the insistence in your quote on the absolute freewill of man does that in itself dictate that the Doctrine of Sovereign Election and Grace is necessary and true?

Even IF Skan quoted church fathers on this, none of them were inspired by God, and need to have this theology of free will reconciled with the Fall!

 

[steaver]

I didn't know that it was a relatively new doctrine. I grew up learning free-will and had a very difficult time when I studied the Scriptures on my own - coming face to face with the truth of God's sovereignty. I kept thinking that I couldn't be reading what I was reading and trying to fit it into my already understood theology. It wasn't from someone's teaching or from me reading books or anything. It came straight from Scripture. So since it was written about in the first century, I'd say it's not "relatively new".

I think it boils down to what parts of scripture one decides to embrace and what parts one decides they will ignore.

I have no problem with the passages declaring God's sovereignty. And I have no problem with the passages declaring man's freewill responsibility to make a decision for God. What happens is we humans can see both truths found in the scriptures, but we decide both cannot be true, one must win out over the other. Truth is, both are correct. If one thinks about it, why do we waste so much time with this subject. I like to listen to Ravi Zachariah, and he says the same as I do, both are taught in the scriptures and the two are held in tension one against the other. It is one of those mysteries of God and His marvelous unsearchable ways!!!!

When John MacArthur was challenged with some of the freewill passages found in the scriptures his answer was "I don't know". John decided to dismiss the freewill passages and go with the Calvinism theology. Why? Why not just go with what you can clearly see that both are there? In our limited human understanding we feel only one can be true. God works freewill into His election process, it is a mystery indeed.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think it boils down to what parts of scripture one decides to embrace and what parts one decides they will ignore.

I have no problem with the passages declaring God's sovereignty. And I have no problem with the passages declaring man's freewill responsibility to make a decision for God. What happens is we humans can see both truths found in the scriptures, but we decide both cannot be true, one must win out over the other. Truth is, both are correct. If one thinks about it, why do we waste so much time with this subject. I like to listen to Ravi Zachariah, and he says the same as I do, both are taught in the scriptures and the two are held in tension one against the other. It is one of those mysteries of God and His marvelous unsearchable ways!!!!

When John MacArthur was challenged with some of the freewill passages found in the scriptures his answer was "I don't know". John decided to dismiss the freewill passages and go with the Calvinism theology. Why? Why not just go with what you can clearly see that both are there? In our limited human understanding we feel only one can be true. God works freewill into His election process, it is a mystery indeed.

Think we have to see that there is NO tension in God view concerning his sovereign dealings and our free will, as we will as sinners decide freely to NOT"come to Jesus", and so he honors our desires, and His own will be their free wils come to jesus....

 

[annsni]

I think it boils down to what parts of scripture one decides to embrace and what parts one decides they will ignore.

I have no problem with the passages declaring God's sovereignty. And I have no problem with the passages declaring man's freewill responsibility to make a decision for God. What happens is we humans can see both truths found in the scriptures, but we decide both cannot be true, one must win out over the other. Truth is, both are correct. If one thinks about it, why do we waste so much time with this subject. I like to listen to Ravi Zachariah, and he says the same as I do, both are taught in the scriptures and the two are held in tension one against the other. It is one of those mysteries of God and His marvelous unsearchable ways!!!!

When John MacArthur was challenged with some of the freewill passages found in the scriptures his answer was "I don't know". John decided to dismiss the freewill passages and go with the Calvinism theology. Why? Why not just go with what you can clearly see that both are there? In our limited human understanding we feel only one can be true. God works freewill into His election process, it is a mystery indeed.

I love what Spurgeon has to say and I really do agree with him:

Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

 

[steaver]

I love what Spurgeon has to say and I really do agree with him:

Yes, but this the Calvinist would not disagree with, for they would say that all are responsible. The conflict is between predestination and the freewill to choose God in real time so to speak. It's the classic which came first the chicken or the egg, which came first, a decision for Christ or regeneration. I believe the answer is quite simple and is given in the Scripture, it lies in the foreknowledge of God. 1Pt1:2 with one word marries the two making both freewill and election truth.

 

[steaver]

Think we have to see that there is NO tension in God view concerning his sovereign dealings and our free will, as we will as sinners decide freely to NOT"come to Jesus", and so he honors our desires, and His own will be their free wils come to jesus....

It's quite clear Jesus absolutely disagrees with this declaration given out by Calvinist...

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

This is the exact opposite of what you just posted brother.