Catholicism & Free Will

  • Thread starter Thread starter Revelation13_16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think what you have to ask yourself is… does God Lie ?

We all know he does not !

We also have to ask ourselves… could the Will of Mighty Man over rule or over come the Will of God ?

No one can resist His will (Romans 9:19).

Only 6 words… yet they say so much, would anybody like to break down this message into the meanings of the individual words… I can start if you like…

No one… means just that, it applies to everybody and there is not one excluded…

Peace
Spirit Driven, I suspect you are a young Calvinist, your view of things are too simple and too easy.

I’m hesitant in engaging with you because you don’t answer people properly - that is - you just throw scripture around.

No one here will deny that God is stronger and that if he wills something it will occur, but the question is:what is God’s will concerning the salvation of human kind?

You may rush to the Bible to throw 2 Peter 3:9 at me “God wishes that none perish but all come to repentance” but if Calvinism is right, and we agree God always gets what he wants (wills) then God’s will must be sub-divided into categories.

This is a very complicated subject, here it is from RC Sproul on page 169 in his book “What is Reformed Theology: Understanding the basics”:
The will of God
God has 3 wills, all different.
  1. Decretive Will = cannot be resisted
  2. Preceptive Will = can be resisted
  3. Will of Disposition = can be resisted
In a nutshell, God’s Decretive Will is the strongest and it is this that he uses for what he really wants.

All secondary wants use the other wills which are weaker.

There’s a whole chapter in Sproul’s book that fleshes this concept out, my explanation is not good because I’m extremely tried and don’t have the stamina to re-read the chapter and then give you the Cliff’s Notes on a plate.

But suffice to say, this concept is not as simple as you believe, trust me brother if it were, I wouldn’t waste my time typing all this out would I?

Warm Reagrds,
Rev13_16
 
Hi Revelation,

The real problem stems from Jeromes translation of the Greek the New Testament was written in… to Latin around 400 AD.
He translated a Greek word that means eon in English, into eternal in Latin.

So of course by the time Jeromes Latin translation was translated into English, Gods word had already been corrupted.
Fortunately Gods Word was not been corrupted enough (yet again) by interpretations being made as well this time around from Latin into English, for the truth to be lost altogether.

So even though Gods word has been corrupted by men, there are still instances, where Gods intentions toward the destiny of men could not be mis interpretated… and therfore could not be corrupted.

This is why the Bible contradicts itself… we know only liars contradict themselves… and God does not contradict himself.

There are now some Bibles that are transliterated from copies of the original Greek the New Testament was written in directly into English, if you are interested.

Transliterated means the Greek word into the English word… no interpretations that could be influenced by the Doctrine of ANY Church was to be made, while translating.

I can give you a Link to an Online Version of the New Testament if you like for your own private study… just bear in mind it is purely a Transliteration… which means the original Greek word into the English word.

Peace
Spirit Driven,

I use the KJV 1611, NASB, & ESV - all use the Masoretic Hebrew for the OT and Koine Greek for the NT.

The NASB is apparently the most literal translation, but this is not a translation issue.

Systematic Theologies attempt to tie the Bible together from start (Genesis) to finish (Revelation) and explain everything in between logically and without contradiction.

The problem is that God deems our Bible to be sufficient for us, and wants us to know no more. If God told us everything about his nature, Christ’s nature, salvation, hell etc, then the Bible would not be 66 books, it would be 6000 thousand, and most of them would have been burned in the dark ages as being satanic as God would explain things that probably only a profesor emertius of Physics could attempt to understand.

So what we have is basically the Cliff’s Notes of the other book God could have given us which explains everything!

The problem with the Cliff’s Notes is that it doesn’t fill in the gaps.

From some verses we hear how God loves all and wants all to come to him (John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9) but then we read that God only saves some when predestining. (Romans 9)

Thus we are left with a void of knowledge and have only other verses and logic in which to argue for and against competeing theologies/views of God.

It’s all very, very complicated.

Warm Regards,
Rev13_16
 
Are you interested in what Bible scholars found when they went back to study copies of the original Greek the New Testament was written in… and made a Translation into English.

I could not imagine any Christian who would not be interested ? and its FREE Online as well !!

concordant.org/version/html.html

Peace
 
Please bear in mind that only the New Testament so far has been translated this way.

Unfortunately there may never be a complete transliteration of the Old testament, some of the meanings of the original hebrew words have been lost forever.

Fortunately the NT was revealed in Greek, a more modern language.

Peace
 
Are you interested in what Bible scholars found when they went back to study copies of the original Greek the New Testament was written in… and made a Translation into English.

I could not imagine any Christian who would not be interested ? and its FREE Online as well !!

concordant.org/version/html.html

Peace
Look.
Both literal and dynamic equivalence philosophies can be carried to extremes. One translation that carries literalism to a ludicrous extreme is the Concordant Version, which was translated by a man who had studied Greek and Hebrew for only a short time. He made a one-to-one rendering in which each word in the ancient originals was translated by one (and only one) word in English. This led to numerous absurdities. For example, compare how the Concordant Version of Genesis 1:20 compares with the NIV:
“And saying is God, ‘Roaming is the water with the roaming, living soul, and the flyer is flying over the earth on the face of the atmosphere of the heavens’” (Concordant Version).
“And God said, ‘Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky’” (NIV).
link
 
I think the major revelation for me in a correctly translated New Testament is that it stops contradicting itself.

Also that the fate of All Man kind is to have eternal Life, at the consumation of Gods plan… and the reward of the righteouse was really the Extra life of reigning with Christ for the eons (eonion life) until the consumation of Gods plan, before being joined by the rest of humanity in eternal life with God at the consumation.

As it turns out the Doctrine of Eternal Torment… should be the Doctrine of Eonion punishment.

As part of their restoration to righteousness.

When Paul said that God will have all men be saved and come to a relisation of the truth… we can now see not only was Paul not lying… we see how God achieves this end.

Salvation is sooner for some… later for others… but for all in the end… that is how God wipes away all the tears in the end !

Peace
 
Salvation is sooner for some… later for others… but for all in the end… that is how God wipes away all the tears in the end !

Peace
Oh yeah?

Revelation 14:9-11 (concordant)
9 And another, a third messenger, follows them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone is worshiping the wild beast and its image, and is getting an emblem on his forehead or on his hand,
10 he, also, is drinking of the wine of the fury of God, blended undiluted in the cup of His indignation, and he shall be tormented in fire and sulphur in the sight of the holy messengers and in the sight of the Lambkin.
11 And the fumes of their torment are ascending for the eons of the eons. And they are having no rest day and night, those worshiping the wild beast and its image, and if anyone is getting the emblem of its name.
 
Eons of the Eons lasts until the conclusion of the Eons.

Eon and Eons are describing periods of time that have a conclusion… eternity has no conclusion.

Do you understand the difference yet ?

Peace
 
Thus we are left with a void of knowledge and have only other verses and logic in which to argue for and against competeing theologies/views of God.

It’s all very, very complicated.

Warm Regards,
Rev13_16
That is why the Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith. There must be more. It’s a very good rule of faith, it is indispensible. But it cannot be the sole rule of faith because of this void of knowledge.

Like you said if God put in everytihng in the bible, it would be enormous. If everything God wanted us to know is in the bible, no more, no less, then there wouldn’t be voids of knowledge, there wouldn’t be gaps.

The Early Church never anticipated a schism or the fracturing of the Body of Christ as what has happened. They just sat down and decided with God’s help, which was inspired, which was useful but not inspired, and which was heretical altogether. The inspired stuff was made into the bible.

The early Church Fathers left out a lot because A: it wasn’t inspired, and B: there would always be a Church there to help people. They never anticipated a schism, let alone sola scriptura.
 
Ironicly enough… it is possible the Roman Catholic Church may have caused the split or reformation if you like.

Yet… God still ordains the steps of men for this to happen…

Conclusion…the fracturing was meant to be, it is part of Gods plan… Scripture has never indicated that God has any other plan than his… plan A… there is no plan B

Purpose… who knows, for all we know it could be part of how he shuts up all in disobedience… ?

There is nothing wrong with being a Roman Catholic… there is also nothing wrong with not being a Roman Catholic as well.

Peace to you all
 
Ironicly enough… it is possible the Roman Catholic Church may have caused the split or reformation if you like.

Yet… God still ordains the steps of men for this to happen…

Conclusion…the fracturing was meant to be, it is part of Gods plan… Scripture has never indicated that God has any other plan than his… plan A… there is no plan B

Purpose… who knows, for all we know it could be part of how he shuts up all in disobedience… ?

There is nothing wrong with being a Roman Catholic… there is also nothing wrong with not being a Roman Catholic as well.

Peace to you all
That’s a bit too relativistic for me. Either a theology is right or it’s wrong. God’s revealed Truth is the standard by which all truth"s" are to be compared.

If we have no free will then our love for God would be meaningless since we have no control to do so or not. If we have no control in our obedience to God then there is no reason to try. That removes any sort of reward or punishment in the afterlife; Either reward or punishment we would recieve would be unjust since we had no control to choose virtuosity or depravity. If we had no choice then we would not need redemption; The Son of God coming to man and dying on the cross for our sins would be pointless.

Bunk.
 
Hi Edwin,

The diocese where I attend is very Calvinistic, connected to a very Calvinistic Seminary to boot.
I looked at your profile and see that you are Australian. This explains a lot. Sydney, I presume? My dad grew up in Windsor, which I know is somewhere in the Sydney area (near the Blue Mountains, I think–at least I remember traveling in the Blue Mountains when we visited my granddad–I was five at the time so I don’t remember it too well).

Sydney is an odd fish in the worldwide Anglican Communion. Some of the Third World provinces are also very low church, but not generally as Calvinistic I believe. Generally I’d describe the low-church Calvinist Anglicans as quite faithful to our 16th-century roots, but Sydney arguably goes even beyond that (their support for lay presidency at the Eucharist, for instance).
I can’t see a distinction between this and Presbyterianism,
There are actually a lot of Presbyterians who are more “high church” than the Sydney Anglicans!
perhaps Episcopalians are different.
They are. Very. The low-church Reformed types mostly left in the 19th century, either joining the Reformed Episcopal Church or simply bleeding off into the broader Aerican Protestant culture. There are a few today–FitzSimmons Allison, retired bishop of South Carolina, would be in this camp (and I recommend anything by him–Rise of Moralism is a good though polemical history of the changes in Anglican soteriology in the seventeenth century). But generally speaking evangelical Episcopalians are more likely to be charismatics than Calvinists. England has more of the Sydney types.
  • What is Reformed Theology? RC Sproul (Read)
  • Why I am not a Calvinist. Wallis/dongell (Reading)
I know Walls (not Wallis) a little (my wife studied with him in seminary), and I disagree with many of his arguments–his critique of the Westminster Confession as inconsistent is flawed IMHO, and he invited me to send him my criticisms before he published the book. In my usual lazy fashion, I never did this (I’m used to doing everything by email and Walls is somewhat of a Luddite). Having read the critique as it stands in WIANAC, I stand by my criticisms (he doesn’t interpret the terminology as the framers of the Confession would have and so he argues that they are contradicting themselves–generally speaking I don’t find “free will” criticisms of Calvinism convincing, largely because of my reading in Augustinianism and Thomism).
  • Why I am not an Arminian. Peterson/williams
  • Arminian Theology: Myths and realities. Olson
  • Grace, Faith, Free Will. Picirilli
  • Chosen by God. RC Sproul
  • Rediscovering the doctrines of Grace. Boice
  • Calvinism debated. White & Hunt.
If I can’t honestly know everything there is to know about both these differing theologies after reading all these books then I give up.
Well, if you want a list of books after which you should give up, then these are not the books. You have never really understood a controversy until you have read its original documents. I’m not saying that these are not good places to start, but they aren’t the classic texts. Sproul is certainly an intelligent and articulate spokesman for conservative Calvinism, but White is just a narrow-minded polemicist as far as I’m concerned, and Hunt is a wild-eyed bigot (though an engaging public speaker I’ll admit, and probably a good man personally). You do appear to have read some Calvin, and that’s good of course. Just because he’s my subject, and also because I think he introduces a good nuance to the Reformed tradition, I’d urge you to see if the seminary library doesn’t have The Common Places of Martin Bucer (mostly selections from his commentaries) edited by David Wright (I’m pretty sure they will). Read the sections on predestination and free will–I believe Wright excerpts a lengthy discussion of free will from the Romans commentary, among other things). Bucer takes a far more nuanced approach to this issue than Calvin.
 
For the history of the doctrine in the later 16th century, Richard Muller’s *Christ and the Decrees *is very good, and of course the authors he discusses are then worth reading. William Perkins, with whom Muller ends, is one of the classic Puritan theologians often seen as a framer of dogmatic, scholastic Calvinism. John Owen in the 17th century was a particularly hardline spokesperson for Calvinism–Richard Baxter was a much more moderate figure. Back to the Reformation, Luther’s *Bondage of the Will *is a favorite of Calvinists (read it together with Erasmus’s *Diatribe on the Freedom of the Will *to which Luther was responding). Melanchthon’s *Loci Communes *in their later versions mark a movement away from Luther’s strong doctrine of predestination. The *Formula of Concord *available on the Internet shows you where sixteenth-century Lutherans ended up on the issue (I presume you’ve looked at some of the classic Reformed confessions: the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dordt, and/or Westminster? The Second Helvetic Confession, written by Heinrich Bullinger, is also a good text).

And then there are some of the later figures–Jonathan Edwards’s *Freedom of the Will, *for instance. Barth and Torrance and other modern theologians have put new twists on the issues.

I’m not saying that you have some duty to read all these works–I haven’t read anywhere near all of them myself, frankly. But if you are going to claim that you’ve read enough books to entitle you to come to a clear conclusion or give up, then all of these should be merely the starting point. I think you vastly underestimate the complexity and difficulty of this issue. It is one of the most difficult–maybe the most difficult if you tie it in with the problem of evil, which I find inevitable–in all of Christian theology. You cannot just read half a dozen modern treatments and think you have gotten to the bottom of it. It would take a lifetime even to stratch the surface.

That is why in my opinion it is blithering idiocy to demand that ordinary Christians take a dogmatic position on this issue. If there is one thing that shows the wrong-headedness of historic Protestantism (except for the Lutherans, who basically decided in the Formula that the issue couldn’t be solved in a logical manner), it’s this.
Who do you suggest reading?
Augustine, obviously–you can find the anti-Pelagian writings in volume 5 of Series 1 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, available online at www.ccel.org (click on “Church Fathers”). The City of God (vol. 2 of the same series) and the Enchiridion (vol. 3, under “Doctrinal Treatises” right after On the Trinity) are also highly relevant. Jaroslav Pelikan sums up the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian debate in chap. 6 of vol. 1 of his multivolume history The Christian Tradition. The early chapters of vol. 3 talk about how the debate played out in the early Middle Ages.

Aquinas is of course vitally important–his Summa Theologiae is available on the web. Question 23 of the Prima Pars deals directly with predestination, but the surrounding discussion of divine providence is necessary for context, and the discussion of grace in Prima Secundae 109-114 is extremely relevant as well. Heiko Oberman’s secondary work *The Harvest of Medieval Theology *discusses how the theology Luther was taught dealt with the “doctrines of grace,” which is important for understanding the Reformation of course.

It’s also a good idea to get a handle on the Eastern Fathers, who take a very different approach and often sound very “semi-Pelagian.” Athanasius’s *On the Incarnation *is the classic work, and I also recommend anything by Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, or John of Damascus.

I have to go teach Greek–I’ll try to deal with your other points as I have time. Sorry if all this just sounds like “go burrow in the library for fifty years and then talk.” In a sense I really am trying to say that you’re unlikely ever to get a handle on this and so shouldn’t make it a basis for decisions about church affiliation. There’s some basic stuff we can be sure of, best summarized by good old Charles Spurgeon: if we are saved, we are saved because God has graciously chosen to save us, and if we are damned, it is because we have wilfully chosen to turn away from God. To quote Rabbi Hillel speaking of something quite different: “all the rest is commentary; go and learn it.”

In Christ,

Edwin
 
Not one of us… chose the hour of our birth… the times we where born into…our cultural back ground… or our Gender.

Not a single one of us chose God… now that is a pretty big statement to make I know, but it is scriptual.

As you read through the New Testament you will notice John relates to us that… Nobody can come to the Son unless drawn by the Father who sent him… You will also notice that Paul relates to us that Non are Righteouse, that no one seeks for God, that there is non that do good, no not even one.

There are millions of Books in the World, but Gods word to us can only be found in one book… the Bible.

Please do read it… it may not be 100% correctly translated in every instance… however God still gets his message accross to you.

Peace
 
Ok, here’s my position.

Most Calvinist’s I’ve encounted if you say that logically, those God doesn’t elect, he effectively chooses to send to hell, scream the following:

“Strawman!”
“Double Predestination/Hyper-Calvinism!”
“That’s not in the Bible!”
Interesting. That actually encourages me about Sydney Anglicanism. Clearly they have some Anglican moderation left. The free-church Calvinists I know in the U.S. would generally have no qualms about this, though the more sensible ones would qualify double predestination by saying that God “chooses” to damn the elect in the sense that He chooses not to save them (i.e., they are viewed as responsible for their sins because they gladly choose to commit them, even though being the people they are they cannot choose otherwise without God’s grace).

The logic of the section of your post I’ve omitted is irrefutable, in my opinion, and the Calvinists I know would not try to refute it. I’m actually one of the few people who might quarrel with it, but I don’t claim it can be logically refuted. I simply claim that the whole issue is so far beyond our understanding that we shouldn’t pin too much on any attempt to make sense of it. We can make certain statements (such as my paraphrase of Spurgeon in the previous post), but we can’t necessarily show how they are consistent with each other.
Calvinist’s hate saying election is a ‘pre-earth lottery’ but because election is unconditional (ie- not performed by anything you or I will have or would have ever done in our lives) it is from our point of view “The Luck of the Draw” whether God has chosen you or not.
From our point of view, perhaps. But of course Calvinists don’t think that our point of view is the important one. They believe that God’s purposes are beyond our understanding. I agree with them–my question is, why not say this several steps earlier in the argument and save yourself from coming within a hairsbreadth of ascribing evil to God?
In conclusion, God does double-predestinate in Calvinism, irregardless of whether Calvinists distance themselves from Calvin and the Institutes, if they believe in a predestinate of the elect to heaven and don’t believe in Annihilationism or another plane unspecified in the Bible, they are forced to admit God predestinates the reprobate to hell if they are to be honest.
Sure. Indeed, given what you say about foreknowledge, I think it’s fair to say that Arminians (unless they embrace the novelty of “open theism” or something of that sort) are also bound to say that God predestines the reprobate to hell in some sense. Simply by creating people whom He knows will choose to reject Him, God is in a sense predestining them for damnation, even though He is in no way violating their free will and in fact sincerely desires them to do choose other than they do.

In other words, the debate is over the precise sense in which God chooses that what He knows will happen will happen. Only the most extreme Calvinists would say that God chooses the damnation of the reprobate in the same way that He chooses the salvation of the elect. This is probably what your friends are talking about when they dub this “hyper-Calvinism.” But precisely how God’s decree of reprobation differs from His degree of election is a matter of debate–there are a number of different positions, and in a matter so mysterious and paradoxical I think we should be very hesitant about calling any of them “illogical.”
But in a nutshell, while I’ve made a new friend who is a Semnary trained Calvinist, my experience is that Calvinist’s are illogical/brainwashed or just plain dishonest and ashamed of their doctrine.
You may know different Calvinists than I do. The ones I’ve known are not illogical or dishonest–they are just wrong:p
 
I don’t believe Calvinist’s can call themselves Calvinist’s unless they agree with Calvin and his systematic theology.

If they depart from that Systematic Theology on a few points then they should write their own Systematic Theology, drawing heavily from the institutes but noting the differences and labelling it something other than Calvinism.

I notice the trend to call it Reformed Theology these days, but’s it’s basically Calvinism minus 1-2% of Calvin’s teachings at most?
I’m rather baffled by this. First you implicitly criticize people who call themselves Calvinists but differ with Calvin. You say that they should call themselves something else. Then you say that they do call themselves something else but that in fact they don’t differ with Calvin that much. Speaking of being illogical. . . . unless perhaps you are speaking of completely different groups of people, which you didn’t make clear.

I disagree with nearly every statement in this section of your post. First of all, you have no right to tell people what “Calvinism” should mean. Language is not limited by etymology. “Calvinism” has come to mean the Reformed tradition as defined by the Canons of Dordt and the other historic confessions. The only different from the term “Reformed” is IMHO historical–one can use the term "Reformed a bit more broadly (I tend to avoid “Calvinism” when speaking of Reformed theology before Calvin, for instance, and I tend to speak of Anglicanism as Reformed rather than Calvinist, because Anglicanism never adopted important aspects of Genevan Calvinism such as church polity). “Reformed” is the older, more universal, and in most respects preferable term. I simply don’t see what your point is here. “Calvinists” have never agreed with Calvin in everything. Calvinism (“Reformed Protestantism”), like Lutheranism, is a confessional tradition. You want to know what Calvinists believe, read their confessions. Calvin is just a particularly important theologian. The Reformed never particularly wanted to be called Calvinists, and it’s highly unfair to saddle the term on them because they generally agree with Calvin and then reproach them with unfaithfulness when they don’t!
Don’t know Fr. Most’s view, would love to read it.
Quite a bit of his stuff is on the Internet. Here’s his analysis of Augustine’s theory of predestination. Most’s own theory is here.
I haven’t read any Luther but if I understand it correctly, Luther said he agrees in predestination but wouldn’t go much further than that, citing it as a ‘mystery of God’.
He’s quite explicit about it in Bondage of the Will, but he didn’t think that it should be preached. Confessional Lutheranism backed off a bit from Luther’s own view.
I think Calvin would have done well to follow suit
I agree entirely. The medieval tradition agreed with Luther on this. Predestination is a difficult and speculative issue–it is worth thinking about but we should be very careful about making it a focus for dogma. I know that it’s false to say that Calvin or Reformed theology is centered on predestination (though to hear some Calvinists today you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was), but Calvinists do make predestination an integral part of their soteriology.

In my dissertation, I came to the conclusion that Martin Bucer (whom many would see as a major influence on Calvin) came to emphasize predestination in his soteriology precisely because he also emphasized sanctification and good works and was sketchy at most with regard to forensic justification, etc. While Luther seems to have believed that justifying faith is in a sense self-authenticating–you just look to Christ and everything else will follow–Bucer needed a bit more than that. He needed a way to distinguish authentic faith from inauthentic (Luther spoke this way too at times, but didn’t emphasize it as much). So he came up with the idea that justifying faith was the “persuasion” (instilled in you by God) that God was gracious to you and hence that you were one of the elect. This meant that (in contrast to Luther, for whom faith was a moment-by-moment thing that could be lost) you could know that you would never fall away (perseverance/eternal security). Only a person whose relationship with God was based on that kind of certainty and security could have a loving, trusting relationship with God. This put predestination at the center of soteriology in a way that it had never been before.

That’s my argument, anyway. . . .

Edwin
 

Your heavy emphasis on the word of God alone ensures you’re not a Catholic​

Do you relise what you just said ?

The word of God is irrefutable in every instance !

The word of God which goes forth from His mouth; It shall not return to Him empty, without accomplishing what He desires, and without succeeding in the matter for which He sent it (Isaiah 55:11).

What was that Jesus said about man not living on Bread alone ?

God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him (John 3:17).

God will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).

Peace
From the side line, I believe Revelation 13 16 was refering to Calvinist/Protestantism’s Sola Scriptura. - “Bible alone” - a position which is not even found in the Bible.
 
Yes, we do. That is why we don’t simply quote it to each other without context, because we assume that those with whom we differ have also read the Bible but interpret it differently. We need to discuss *why *we interpret it differently, which mere quotation does not address.

No, but apparently you do, or you would not assume so readily that the passages you quote can have only one meaning.

Edwin
One observation regarding the multiplicity of interpretations among non-Catholics touches on the issue of Doctrines. The best example here is the works of John Newmann who made
a detailed examination of the 39 Articles, suggesting that their negations were not directed against the authorized creed of Roman Catholics, but only against popular errors and exaggerations. He then proceeded to write The now famous Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Newman used the idea of development of doctrine to defend Catholic teaching from attacks by some Anglicans and other Protestants, who saw the newer elements in Catholic teaching as corruptions or innovations. He argued that, on the contrary, various Catholic doctrines not accepted by Protestants (such as devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or Purgatory) had a developmental history analogous to doctrines that were accepted by Protestants (such as the Trinity or the divinity and humanity of Christ). Such developments were, in his view, the natural and beneficial consequences of reason working on the original revealed truth to draw out consequences that were not obvious at first.

This is the main reason why it is only the Catholic set of doctrines that can be traced back to the beliefs of the Early Fathers, unless one opts to disregard the eyewitnesses to the God of the Resurrection.

Having cited the above, I’d say the availability of a unified set of doctrines that help avoid multiplicity of personal revelations or interpretations can save a lot of arguments.
 
I looked at your profile and see that you are Australian. This explains a lot. Sydney, I presume? My dad grew up in Windsor, which I know is somewhere in the Sydney area (near the Blue Mountains, I think–at least I remember traveling in the Blue Mountains when we visited my granddad–I was five at the time so I don’t remember it too well).
Sydney, yes.
Sydney is an odd fish in the worldwide Anglican Communion. Some of the Third World provinces are also very low church, but not generally as Calvinistic I believe. Generally I’d describe the low-church Calvinist Anglicans as quite faithful to our 16th-century roots, but Sydney arguably goes even beyond that (their support for lay presidency at the Eucharist, for instance).
I’ve only taken Eucharist in Sydney about 5 times and all was presided over by a Reverend. (but the trays carried around by lay persons)
I know Walls (not Wallis) a little (my wife studied with him in seminary), and I disagree with many of his arguments–his critique of the Westminster Confession as inconsistent is flawed IMHO, and he invited me to send him my criticisms before he published the book. In my usual lazy fashion, I never did this (I’m used to doing everything by email and Walls is somewhat of a Luddite). Having read the critique as it stands in WIANAC, I stand by my criticisms (he doesn’t interpret the terminology as the framers of the Confession would have and so he argues that they are contradicting themselves–generally speaking I don’t find “free will” criticisms of Calvinism convincing, largely because of my reading in Augustinianism and Thomism).
I’d love to hear your thoughts on Compatibalism. 👍
Well, if you want a list of books after which you should give up, then these are not the books. You have never really understood a controversy until you have read its original documents. I’m not saying that these are not good places to start, but they aren’t the classic texts.
Argh, I spent a small fortune on these.

Oh well, at least it’s a good intro, but I’d prefer to be done with this subject and either justify one and kill the other for good.
Sproul is certainly an intelligent and articulate spokesman for conservative Calvinism, but White is just a narrow-minded polemicist as far as I’m concerned, and Hunt is a wild-eyed bigot (though an engaging public speaker I’ll admit, and probably a good man personally).
Sproul is widely praised, as Boice I believe.

I wasn’t going to get White or Hunt because of their reputations but thought this book in it’s debate format would be light and entertaining, akin to a colloquial conversation about the subject.
You do appear to have read some Calvin,
I’ve only skimmed Chapter 21 of Book 3 of the Institutes, with glances to chs 22-23.
and that’s good of course. Just because he’s my subject, and also because I think he introduces a good nuance to the Reformed tradition, I’d urge you to see if the seminary library doesn’t have The Common Places of Martin Bucer (mostly selections from his commentaries) edited by David Wright (I’m pretty sure they will).
I’m not in seminary, I’m just a commoner.

I hope to go to seminary one day however.
Read the sections on predestination and free will–I believe Wright excerpts a lengthy discussion of free will from the Romans commentary, among other things). Bucer takes a far more nuanced approach to this issue than Calvin.
Romans does seem the key to all this.

I’ve got Picirilli’s (Reformed Arminian & Greek scholar) commentary coming and I hope to see how he differs in interpreting ch. 9 from the Calvinists.

-Rev
 
Thanks for the recommendations.

I was thinking of getting this eventually.

Waste of money?
Melanchthon’s *Loci Communes *in their later versions mark a movement away from Luther’s strong doctrine of predestination. The *Formula of Concord *available on the Internet shows you where sixteenth-century Lutherans ended up on the issue (I presume you’ve looked at some of the classic Reformed confessions: the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dordt, and/or Westminster?
I haven’t read any of these. gulp
And then there are some of the later figures–Jonathan Edwards’s *Freedom of the Will, *for instance. Barth and Torrance and other modern theologians have put new twists on the issues.
I hope Edwards’ “Freedom” isn’t like his “THE JUSTICE OF GOD IN THE DAMNATION OF SINNERS”.

He spent nearly all the text calling humans ‘worms’ and whatnot in an attempt to justify God’s sovereign choice in choosing whom he will.
I’m not saying that you have some duty to read all these works–I haven’t read anywhere near all of them myself, frankly. But if you are going to claim that you’ve read enough books to entitle you to come to a clear conclusion or give up, then all of these should be merely the starting point. I think you vastly underestimate the complexity and difficulty of this issue. It is one of the most difficult–maybe the most difficult if you tie it in with the problem of evil, which I find inevitable–in all of Christian theology. You cannot just read half a dozen modern treatments and think you have gotten to the bottom of it. It would take a lifetime even to stratch the surface.
Perhaps, but all the Calvinist apologetics I’ve read on this sound exactly the same, in a nutshell God can do what he wants and can’t be wrong, everyone should shut up, and the saved should be thankful they were chosen.
That is why in my opinion it is blithering idiocy to demand that ordinary Christians take a dogmatic position on this issue. If there is one thing that shows the wrong-headedness of historic Protestantism (except for the Lutherans, who basically decided in the Formula that the issue couldn’t be solved in a logical manner), it’s this.
I’m not a confirmed Anglican yet. I was baptized a Baptist, but I’ve never taken confirmation as yet to any denomonation.

I can’t confirm myself to a Calvinist church with these qualms, I’d just be an imposter.
Augustine, obviously–you can find the anti-Pelagian writings in volume 5 of Series 1 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, available online at www.ccel.org (click on “Church Fathers”). The City of God (vol. 2 of the same series) and the Enchiridion (vol. 3, under “Doctrinal Treatises” right after On the Trinity) are also highly relevant. Jaroslav Pelikan sums up the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian debate in chap. 6 of vol. 1 of his multivolume history The Christian Tradition. The early chapters of vol. 3 talk about how the debate played out in the early Middle Ages.

Aquinas is of course vitally important–his Summa Theologiae is available on the web. Question 23 of the Prima Pars deals directly with predestination, but the surrounding discussion of divine providence is necessary for context, and the discussion of grace in Prima Secundae 109-114 is extremely relevant as well. Heiko Oberman’s secondary work *The Harvest of Medieval Theology *discusses how the theology Luther was taught dealt with the “doctrines of grace,” which is important for understanding the Reformation of course.

It’s also a good idea to get a handle on the Eastern Fathers, who take a very different approach and often sound very “semi-Pelagian.” Athanasius’s *On the Incarnation *is the classic work, and I also recommend anything by Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, or John of Damascus.
I have some Augustine on Free Will coming to me, and William of Ockham’s view on predestination.

Thanks for your recommendations.
I have to go teach Greek–I’ll try to deal with your other points as I have time. Sorry if all this just sounds like “go burrow in the library for fifty years and then talk.” In a sense I really am trying to say that you’re unlikely ever to get a handle on this and so shouldn’t make it a basis for decisions about church affiliation.
There’s some basic stuff we can be sure of, best summarized by good old Charles Spurgeon: if we are saved, we are saved because God has graciously chosen to save us, and if we are damned, it is because we have wilfully chosen to turn away from God.
I disagree with this view personally.
To quote Rabbi Hillel speaking of something quite different: “all the rest is commentary; go and learn it.”

In Christ,

Edwin
In Christ,
Rev13_16
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top