S
stewstew03
Guest
Well… what does it mean to persevere? Is it just a matter of Christ’s intercession, or is Man choosing to respond to God’s grace?
- Status
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Because of Christ’s intercession, man is receiving the grace to continue to choose grace. Of course, neither you or I believe in sinless perfection, so man will still succumb to the flesh, but never fully and finally.
K
Khalid
Guest
Essentially non-existent, at least in the way it is commonly conceived. It’s called compatibilism, although it could be argued Augustine and some of the reformers were fully determinist (hard determinist), and that modern quantum physics may even bolster a libertarian (this is the naive and general conception of “free will”) view by analogy, but the determinism or lack thereof of the will is not linked to causal determinism (which is what QM militates against).
Think, if all our actions are pre-determined, we are not free. If they are not pre-determined, they are random - still not free. True metaphysical free will can become quite a large wrench in the machinery when one attempts to systematize a theology, or come up with a coherent doctrine of grace.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Thanks!
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Jimmy, in order for repentance to be a reality for a person, they musg first have been raised to newness of life first. That is, the person must be regenerated or he/she will never ask forgiveness for their sins. Within the context of predestination/election, it means that God purposed a certain moment in time where the person hears the gospel, is born from above by the Spirit working in the gospel, and then repents of their sins.
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Good points, Khalid. Therein lies the problem with trying to incorporate free will into discussions of Scriptural doctrine. Our mmodern notions of free will are based on Western Greek philosophical systems. They are foreign to the biblical concepts of human freedom and responsibility. That is what led Tertullian to famously declare, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?”
If we impose those concepts onto the prophetic and apostolic scriptures, we are led to a whole host of eisegetical interpretations.
Romans 9 is the death knell of Greek libertarian free will.
K
Khalid
Guest
I agree, and I believe compatibilism (“free” as in “free from coercion”) is amenable to the Scriptures and to sound theology.
Still, almost everyone, of most religions (except for Muslims - Insa’Allah this, Mas’Allah that - very, very hard determinists who actually live like they believe it), Protestant or Catholic, who haven’t actively thought the matter through, believe in a “common-sense” libertarian free will. Common sense does have a lot going for it (as is commonly said, Aristotle’s philosophy and Aquinas’ theology is largely based on following through all of the implications of a common-sense view of things, such as “why are two cats both cats, even if one is missing a leg?”), but in this case falls severely short.
Getting back to the whole “grace” topic - while thinking on this the other day, I came to understand, or to believe, that beyond a rampant Semi- or Full- Pelagianism “in the pews” amongst both Catholics and Protestants, there was, after the Reformation, with such an emphasis on predestination, a great backlash against predestination or deterministic theories of grace in the Catholic Church. Thus, Thomas Aquinas, writing before any of the Western schisms, along with Augustine as well, has a different, and one could say “more pure” view of grace, when compared to those theologians writing afterwards. What think you of this, that much of Catholic theology of grace that originated after the Reformation, was too heavily influenced, in a reactionary sense, by the Reformers’ heavy emphasis (one could argue too heavy of an emphasis) on predestination and sovereign grace?
The same happened after the Pelagian controversies, theologians reacted by becoming more Augustinian. After the Donatist controversies, they became more Catholic. As was famously said, I believe either by Schaff or Warfield, “The Protestant Reformation is Augustine’s doctrine of grace defeating Augustine’s doctrine of church.”
The Catholic side eventually developed in to outright Semi-Pelagianism amongst even some of the learned and to “Anonymous Christian” theory on the other hand, and the Protestant side in to Dispensationalism and Hyper-Calvinism (no free offer of the gospel) on one hand, and to “two covenant salvation” (or whatever it’s called: the view the Mosaic covenant is eternal and salvific) and postmillenialistic Social Gospel on the other hand.
This tendency of later theology to react to previous theology is one reason I value Church Fathers, especially ones writing before a certain controversy, to be so valuable. An especially excellent an insightful work is the commentary on Romans (in two volumes, Catholic University of America Press) written by one of only two heretics ever to be considered Fathers of the Church, Origen. I would recommend obtaining it and reading it.
Undoubtedly he was a genius, and not as heretical in his own day as he later became (after his ideas were condemned), but he was, also, undoubtedly a heretic in his own life; he had a great love for innovation and speculation for their own sakes. He was probably the most influential Church Father of all time; in his theology and De Principiis, he heavily influenced the later Cappadocians, and through them, all of Eastern theology, and, although his theological influence was not nearly as pronounced in the West, he heavily influence Jerome and his text-critical theories, which were resurrected in strength, in even more strength than they had originally possessed, by Westcott and Hort, and lay the basis for mainstream (not me - I defend the Byzantine text) modern “reconstructions” of the Bible and the entire lower criticism, and, incidentally, a good deal of the higher criticism as well (Origen’s often-sweeping, drastic lower criticism was frequently based on higher critical conjectures).
His criticism had no influence on the East, as it had no disciples and popularizers like it had in Jerome in the West; his theology had little influence in the West, as it had no disciples or popularizers like it had the Cappadocians in the East. He inspires great hate in some (many educated Baptists and conservative Protestants), and great love bordering on adoration in others, such as Bl John Henry Cardinal Newman, who said, “I love the name of Origen; I will not lsten to the notion that so great a soul was lost.”
The Eastern Orthodox are impossible to even rank on the Augustinian-Pelagian spectrum of theologies of grace; from all I have seen, all I have heard, have read, the Orthodox have scant conception of justification - almost as if it was a foreign concept - but a very, very keen sense of sanctification. They went in the opposite direction of the prevailing tendency in the West, which is, as I have repeatedly pointed out, to sever sanctification from justification, or to subsume it all in to one moment of justification. The Orthodox, doing oppositely, subsumed justification in to sanctification. Some of my perception of this, though, I admit, may be due to the notoriously “non-dogmatic” or “non-dogmatizing”/non-philosophical nature of much modern Orthodox (such as Romanides, Giannaras, Lossky, Meyendorff: even if the first anti-logical Orthodox, Barlaam of Calabria and his disciples, freely used Aristotelian logic and philosophy, in order to prove the uselessness of logic and philosophy), of which the other side of the coin is mysticism or Hesychasm, and lends itself to a very undeveloped systematic theology and an over-heavy emphasis on "experiential theology.
However, if one goes back to the original Byzantine scholastics, Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene, one finds predestination throughout their works, not so different from the West and the vilified Augustine. In Gregory of Nyssa, one also finds predestination - the predestination of all to eternal beatitude.
Still, almost everyone, of most religions (except for Muslims - Insa’Allah this, Mas’Allah that - very, very hard determinists who actually live like they believe it), Protestant or Catholic, who haven’t actively thought the matter through, believe in a “common-sense” libertarian free will. Common sense does have a lot going for it (as is commonly said, Aristotle’s philosophy and Aquinas’ theology is largely based on following through all of the implications of a common-sense view of things, such as “why are two cats both cats, even if one is missing a leg?”), but in this case falls severely short.
Getting back to the whole “grace” topic - while thinking on this the other day, I came to understand, or to believe, that beyond a rampant Semi- or Full- Pelagianism “in the pews” amongst both Catholics and Protestants, there was, after the Reformation, with such an emphasis on predestination, a great backlash against predestination or deterministic theories of grace in the Catholic Church. Thus, Thomas Aquinas, writing before any of the Western schisms, along with Augustine as well, has a different, and one could say “more pure” view of grace, when compared to those theologians writing afterwards. What think you of this, that much of Catholic theology of grace that originated after the Reformation, was too heavily influenced, in a reactionary sense, by the Reformers’ heavy emphasis (one could argue too heavy of an emphasis) on predestination and sovereign grace?
The same happened after the Pelagian controversies, theologians reacted by becoming more Augustinian. After the Donatist controversies, they became more Catholic. As was famously said, I believe either by Schaff or Warfield, “The Protestant Reformation is Augustine’s doctrine of grace defeating Augustine’s doctrine of church.”
The Catholic side eventually developed in to outright Semi-Pelagianism amongst even some of the learned and to “Anonymous Christian” theory on the other hand, and the Protestant side in to Dispensationalism and Hyper-Calvinism (no free offer of the gospel) on one hand, and to “two covenant salvation” (or whatever it’s called: the view the Mosaic covenant is eternal and salvific) and postmillenialistic Social Gospel on the other hand.
This tendency of later theology to react to previous theology is one reason I value Church Fathers, especially ones writing before a certain controversy, to be so valuable. An especially excellent an insightful work is the commentary on Romans (in two volumes, Catholic University of America Press) written by one of only two heretics ever to be considered Fathers of the Church, Origen. I would recommend obtaining it and reading it.
Undoubtedly he was a genius, and not as heretical in his own day as he later became (after his ideas were condemned), but he was, also, undoubtedly a heretic in his own life; he had a great love for innovation and speculation for their own sakes. He was probably the most influential Church Father of all time; in his theology and De Principiis, he heavily influenced the later Cappadocians, and through them, all of Eastern theology, and, although his theological influence was not nearly as pronounced in the West, he heavily influence Jerome and his text-critical theories, which were resurrected in strength, in even more strength than they had originally possessed, by Westcott and Hort, and lay the basis for mainstream (not me - I defend the Byzantine text) modern “reconstructions” of the Bible and the entire lower criticism, and, incidentally, a good deal of the higher criticism as well (Origen’s often-sweeping, drastic lower criticism was frequently based on higher critical conjectures).
His criticism had no influence on the East, as it had no disciples and popularizers like it had in Jerome in the West; his theology had little influence in the West, as it had no disciples or popularizers like it had the Cappadocians in the East. He inspires great hate in some (many educated Baptists and conservative Protestants), and great love bordering on adoration in others, such as Bl John Henry Cardinal Newman, who said, “I love the name of Origen; I will not lsten to the notion that so great a soul was lost.”
The Eastern Orthodox are impossible to even rank on the Augustinian-Pelagian spectrum of theologies of grace; from all I have seen, all I have heard, have read, the Orthodox have scant conception of justification - almost as if it was a foreign concept - but a very, very keen sense of sanctification. They went in the opposite direction of the prevailing tendency in the West, which is, as I have repeatedly pointed out, to sever sanctification from justification, or to subsume it all in to one moment of justification. The Orthodox, doing oppositely, subsumed justification in to sanctification. Some of my perception of this, though, I admit, may be due to the notoriously “non-dogmatic” or “non-dogmatizing”/non-philosophical nature of much modern Orthodox (such as Romanides, Giannaras, Lossky, Meyendorff: even if the first anti-logical Orthodox, Barlaam of Calabria and his disciples, freely used Aristotelian logic and philosophy, in order to prove the uselessness of logic and philosophy), of which the other side of the coin is mysticism or Hesychasm, and lends itself to a very undeveloped systematic theology and an over-heavy emphasis on "experiential theology.
However, if one goes back to the original Byzantine scholastics, Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene, one finds predestination throughout their works, not so different from the West and the vilified Augustine. In Gregory of Nyssa, one also finds predestination - the predestination of all to eternal beatitude.
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
I think many people lose sight of the fact that within the context of the debates in the 16th century and onward over predestination, the context was never over categories of free will in the sense of man being determined in everything he does. The reformers were never interested in whether man freely chooses where to work, whom to marry, what to eat. Although it was understood that God’s providence was behind all things, it was accepted that man was free in relation to earthly things.
Theit concern was unregenerate man’s inability to desire any relationship with God. So compatibilism or common will is perfectly harmonious within a Reformed/Luthersn framework.
Of course, what separates Christian providential theology, unlike Islam and Greek determinism, is that the Determiner is a personal, relational Being is a loving God, who became flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone. So, we can be free from the anxiety that gripped Greek fatalism and the masochism of Islam’s lonely tyrant.
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
To your second point here, it can’t be overstated. Most historians and theologians will emphasize the difference of Rome and the reformers on justification by faith. It’s rightly pointed out. It’s not, however, I would argue the central division. Often, overzealous apologists will stress the novelty of Luther and Calvin’s sola fide. in actuality, the church had always had theologians who discussed it. Granted, Luther phrased it in different ways but he was as much folkowing after Bernard of Clairveaux on this as Augustine and others. What I think lurks behind the sola fide issue is a rejection of the necessity and dependence of grace on the sacerdotal ministrations of the Church. Hence Warfield’s quote that you cited. I would argue it’s the differences in eclesiology that led to division as much, if not more, than justification or predestination.
Both sides agreed in the principle of sola gratia. The question was is God’s grace sufficient in and of itself? Or was it dependent on the mediatorial offices of the church? If the reformers answered that grace was not sufficient, than there was no reason for them to debate Rome, since it would be necessary for Rome to do what Rome was doing. If Rome answered that grace alone was sufficient, than its adoption of the scholastic understanding of salvation was manifestly in error.
To your first point, I think the emphasis on sovereign grace was as much a reaction against humanism as it was Catholicism. Granted, the scholastic method was deep rooted in the church. I am not sure the early reformers overky stressed it. The rise of Arminianism (which is much more Semi-Pelagian than Rome ever was) was as much a cause for the emphasis on sovereignty as much as the Reformation. The Reformation debates were more confined to Erasmus/Luther confrontations.
The Second Council of Orange was unheard of at the time of the Reformation, as I understand it. How much of an impact do you think this made to the theology that came out of Trent?
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Another factor to take into consideration in the development of Catholic theology post-Reformation is the Jansenist movement in France. This movement is under reported in Catholic circles and demonstrates the extent to which both Lutheran and Calvinist thought on grace and predestination was so very deeply catholic in its principles. The way in which Roman Catholic teaching at the time had succumbed to humanist, scholastic, and modernist thought is demonstrated in its condemnation of Augustinius. Which, some would partly argue, is a direct condemnation of the theology of Augustine, given that the work is mostly his quotes! Blasted Jesuits
Dispensationalism in its early forms…I am not sure as to what I can attribute its development. I don’t hesitate to state that Dispensationalism in its early forms, as advocated by Darby and Scofield, is, well…heresy. I can’t think of a nice or politically correct way to phrase that. It has begun to moderate since Ryrie. It’s two covenant path to salvation, reinstitution of temple sacrifices in the millennium and such…are just simply bizarre and completely opposed to New Testament - especially Pauline - thought as to wonder how anyone has ever managed to take it seriously. Of course, I am not a devotee of Reformed Covenant Theology, either (I would take a middle road between the two); but I don’t think you can separate the rise of Dispensationalist thinking and the Holiness movement. Remember that Dispensationalism did not begin to catch on until the late 19th and early 20th century…owing to revivalistic moralism among American Baptists.
Eastern Orthodox theology is, for all intents and purposes, frozen in time. While it does offer very unique and positive understandings of the Christian life (and I find its concepts of theosis very warming, and very much in line with Calvin’s Union with Christ), it has essentially made very little headway in Christian thought for 1400 years. This is a strength in that it allows them to boast of being closer to the early church in the understanding of salvation, and that’s true…I also don’t believe its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, however. Ignorance of the Pauline understanding of justification was natural given that the early church was spending all of its time combating Christological heresies and persecution for the first few hundred years of its existence. It has no excuse now, though. Although I wholly disagree with the direction the Latin church eventually went with justification…at least it went somewhere! A stagnant understanding of Christian truth is not a badge of merit I’d readily wear, nor any modern contribution to biblical scholarship one to boast of. The ECF’s are great, but I don’t think we should stay there.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Indeed, and actually we can go as far back as Clement of Rome:
Source: earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html
Peace,
Jose
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Welcome to the conversation, Isaiah! I will call your Clement reference and raise you a Lutheran cum Orthodox theologian Jaroslav Pelikan! I think his quote here stresses the nature of the tragedy of the Council of Trent in the Protestant mind. I don’t expect you to agree of course but it’s a point worthy of consideration:
“'Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition. That was eminently true of the central Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone…That the ground of our salvation is the unearned favor of God in Christ, and that all we need do to obtain it is to trust that favor – this was the confession of great catholic saints and teachers…Rome’s reactions [to the Protestant reformers] were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone – a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers – Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted(justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition.” - The Riddle of Roman Catholicism
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Howdy Gaelic,
The thing that is sometimes missed is that Clement didn’t say “alone”.
He probably had Exodus and Romans in mind
[bibledrb]Romans 9:15[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Romans 11:34[/bibledrb]
For those of us who have heard the Good News and have “knowledge” of the gifts and mercies of God it is reasonable to assume that we “understand” the gift of Salvation.
However, our limited “knowledge” can’t comprehend our Lord’s works outside of what we understand.
Peace,
Jose
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Point taken, Isaiah. I don’t expect Clement to have ever incorporated the “alone” language into his theology. However, as with Paul in Romans 3:28, one can’t help but notice that both Paul and Clement exclude any human activity in the result of justification before God. How is this any different than saying “alone?”Howdy Gaelic,
The thing that is sometimes missed is that Clement didn’t say “alone”.
He probably had Exodus and Romans in mind
[bibledrb]Romans 9:15[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]Romans 11:34[/bibledrb]
For those of us who have heard the Good News and have “knowledge” of the gifts and mercies of God it is reasonable to assume that we “understand” the gift of Salvation.
However, our limited “knowledge” can’t comprehend our Lord’s works outside of what we understand.
Peace,
Jose
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Because of James:
[bibledrb]James 2:17[/bibledrb]
The Apostles did meet together and they had a common understanding. What James is talking about here, was known to Paul, Clement and the others that worked on Christ Jesus Church. Thus, they avoid the qualifier of alone.
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
True. James, however, I would contend is decidely using faith not as a supernatural virtue given to man by grace . He is instead focusing upon a *profession * of faith. Hence his use of the language…“you say you have faith.” Another way to paraphrase James’ statement is “So you know that a man is shown to be right with God, not only by his profession of faith, but also by his works.”
This is in harmony with Paul’s numerous discussions of the importance of obedience and good works. However, if we say that what James is saying is that we are justified by faith (as a grace) and works, then we force him to contradict Paul.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello Gaelic Bard,
Thank you for your post.
Let the semantic games begin…
.
This is what happens when a non-Catholic attempts to interpret a Catholic book. Verses are taken out of context, Christian history (tradition) is ignored and/or a semantically driven argument is started.
Am I wrong?
Your thoughts?
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
That’s an assertion, Jimmy, not an argument. If I’ve mishandled the verses. Please demonstrate how. Augustine interpreted them the same wayHello Gaelic Bard,
Thank you for your post.
Let the semantic games begin…
.
This is what happens when a non-Catholic attempts to interpret a Catholic book. Verses are taken out of context, Christian history (tradition) is ignored and/or a semantically driven argument is started.
Am I wrong?
Your thoughts?
B
Bookcat
Guest
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Thanks for these, Bookcat! Benedict is indeed wise. I wish he’d expanded on his faith through charity statement. Of course, I know he didn’t have time to engage it at length.
- Status