COSC2U2@uhvax1.uh.edu (08/14/89)
A SHORT SYNOPSIS ON THE PREDESTINATION VS FREE WILL ARGUMENT
This dispute has been going on , at least since Christ's time.
The Pharasees being in the Predestination Corner, and the Saaducees
being for Free Will. The Old Testament (Septuagint) comes out
unequivocally in Deuteronomy 30:19, at least in tone, in favor of
Free Will. If Christ were to favor Predestination, the Free Willers
would take plenty of consolation from Christ's definition of the
Elect: "God would have ALL MEN to be saved and come unto the Knowledge
of the Truth", which, in effect spikes the Predestinationists guns.
The Romans 8 argument fails because 1) "Predestined" is used instead
of the the correct word "Claimed", and 2) Even if "Predestined" is permitted,
the whole argument is that God "Predestines" a believer because of foreknown
'Good Works' (Good works are the result of Faith [Faithfullness, if you go
to Habakuk 2]). "Foreknown" establishes a Cause-and-Effect Relation that
Luther and Calvin were unconfortable with, that is, something in the future
causes something in the past ( A quick look in Discovery Magazine's recent
article on Tacheons establishes this possibility. Tacheons move faster than
the speed of light in a NEGATIVE TIME DIRECTION ! Because of God's
Omnipotence, it follows that Foreknowledge can be a Cause), and their
theologies thus put restrictions on God. The Eastern Orthodox Church
treats Romans 8 as a Doctrine of Divine Grace, renouncing all Fatalism
connected to the Calvinist-Manichean interpretation of Predestionation.
Most other Churches have followed suit in their own independant ways.
Christianity initially chose the Free Will path, as St. John Chrysostom was
the leading proponent, and was not seriously opposed in this matter.
Continuing the history, the next people after the Pharasees to espouse
Predestination were the Persian-based, Synergistic Fire-Worshipping
Zarathustrian Deviants, the Manicheans. Mani, the founder, preached Dualism,
GOOD/Light/Spiritual (Ahura-Mazda) vs. EVIL/Dark/Material (Ahriman). The
Ultimate Crime in this Theology was to trap light into darkness. This was
done by 1) Roasting or eating meat, and 2) Procreating. Pennance could be
obtained for 2) by the believers, but not by the priests. Their 3 major
doctrines were 1) Vegetarianism, 2) Celebacy, and 3) Fatalistic Predestination.
This group was scattered far and wide, with survivors living today in Mongolia.
The would recur as Bogomils, Lollards, and Albigenesses. Their Synergistic
character allowed them to pose as Christains in the second through fifth
Centuries. One Manichaen who became a Christian was none other than St.
Ambrose's prodigy, St. Augustine. St. Augustine preached both Free Will
and Predestination. St. Ambrose did not agree with Predestination, and
got into some polemics over this. To confound matters, Pelagius enters
with the argument that Man can achieve grace without divine assistance.
This situation was resolved at the Council of Orange, shortly after St.
Augustine's death, with both Pelagian and Manichean views rejected.
With the exception of the sporadic recurrences of the Manichaeans, nothing
happens until John Calvin. After much friendly encouragement of the Reformers
by Erasmus, (Indeed, Erasmus is entitled to called the Formost of the
Reformers, if not the Great Reformer of the Roman Catholic Church [Why hasn't
the Pope Cannonized him yet ?].), Erasmus sees that the Reformers have strayed
from the Straight and Narrow path, and publishes "The Freedom of the Will".
This book is rather long, and scholarly, and goes into most of the arguments
for Free Will. One does not have the heart to take him to task when he says
that if you want more, he could bore you with proofs from Acts and Revelation.
Martin Luther takes offense. His "Bondage of the Will" is little more than
a temper tantrum of name-calling because Erasmus did not take his side.
Significant is the fact that Luther cites Melancthon's book as a source
of proofs for Predestination, because Melancthon later takes the position
of Erasmus.
At this juncture, Predestination was all but dead, except among the
Calvinists. They stage a near recovery when Patriarch Romanus {The name
could be wrong}, the so-called "Protestant Patriarch" opened negotiations
with the Calvinists to form a united front against the Catholics. Possibly,
Cardinal Richilieu was behind the scenes cementing a Turk-Protestant-French
alliance against the Habsburg-Papal alliance. The "Protestant Patriarch"
adopted a new Creed to apease the Calvinists, but the politically advantageous
Creed was not well recieved by the Greeks. During 1600-1650, the Eastern
Orthodox Church finally rejected Predestination, after 4 Church Councils
spanning this time period, to the extent that adhereing to Predestination
became an Excomunicatable Offense.
Even today, Predestination makes a sporadic appearance. Indeed, Fatalistic
Predestination is an essential belief of Islam. However, the Council of
Orange relegated Predestination to Heterodoxy. (Funny how an old discredited
doctrine can reappear. Arianism is now part of New Age Thinking).
--ceb
[It's amazingly difficult to be clear about the exact meaning of
Paul's arguments. If you've been following my comments, you know that
I think it is going too far to read Calvin's full double
predestinarian interpretation into Rom 9. I also think it's going too
far to read the later idea that salvation is based on foreknown good
works into Rom 8:29. The word translated here "foreknew" is given the
meaning "chose before" in Gingrich's Shorter Lexicon. Its use in Rom
11:2 makes this translation at least plausible, though it seems maybe
a bit too explicitly Reformed. Unfortunately, Paul just doesn't
directly answer 16th Cent. questions.
Your view of Luther's "Bondage of the Will" seems, shall we say,
quixotic. As moderator I'm not going to go into a lengthy defense of
one side or the other of this argument. But both Erasmus and Luther
agreed that the issue of freedom or bondage of the will was the
crucial underlying one of the Reformation. As such, many Lutherans
consider the Bondage of the Will to be Luther's more important
theological work. You may not agree with it, but calling it simply a
temper tantrum seems odd.
Are you possibly thinking of Cyril Lucaris, Patriarch of Alexandria,
and later of Constantinople? He is known for being influenced by
Reformed theology. The Confession of Dositheus (1672) was directed
against his position. As you say, it makes it clear that the Eastern
Church did not look kindly on being regarded as Protestant. Actually,
it uses the word predestined, but it teaches that God's predestination
follows from his foreknowledge of how people will use their free-will.
This is certainly a rejection of predestination in its usual meaning.
I'd be interested in more details about the position that you think
the Council of Orange endorsed. It certainly rejected double
predestination, and probably also predestination as held by Luther.
However its position also does not seem consistent with that of
Erasmus or the Confession of Dositheus. It holds that because of
original sin, man is completely helpless, and can do nothing without
God's prior grace. However it seems to associate the reception of
this grace with baptism. I get the impression that (consistent
with at least some of what Augustine said) the view is that with
baptism, free will is restored, and then some people choose to
follow God and others not to. However I'm not entirely sure that's
what they mean. I have the whole document in front of me, but don't
know anything about the theological context, so I'm reluctant to
draw any firm conclusions. If I'm right, this isn't exactly the
same view as Erasmus, or at least I don't think it is.
--clh]COSC2U2@elroy.uh.edu (08/17/89)
In article <Aug.14.00.58.54.1989.27654@athos.rutgers.edu>, COSC2U2@uhvax1.uh.edu writes:> > [It's amazingly difficult to be clear about the exact meaning of > Paul's arguments. If you've been following my comments, you know that > I think it is going too far to read Calvin's full double > predestinarian interpretation into Rom 9. I also think it's going too > far to read the later idea that salvation is based on foreknown good > works into Rom 8:29. The word translated here "foreknew" is given the > meaning "chose before" in Gingrich's Shorter Lexicon. The Definition I used, "claimed" came from Evangelical Free Church Literature dated around 1982-1984. It is not too far removed from your "chose before", and I suspect that some other Lexicon would resolve this minor discrepancy. [For example, the German Bible states that Jonah's vine was a pumpkin, what we call a gourd.] > Its use in Rom > 11:2 makes this translation at least plausible, though it seems maybe > a bit too explicitly Reformed. Unfortunately, Paul just doesn't > directly answer 16th Cent. questions. This is one of the reasons I like patristic literature. Get the opinion of a second, third, fourth, or fifth generation disciple. Try the Didache. TV evangelists will HATE this one, especially the Jack Sparks edition. > > Your view of Luther's "Bondage of the Will" seems, shall we say, > quixotic. As moderator I'm not going to go into a lengthy defense of > one side or the other of this argument. But both Erasmus and Luther > agreed that the issue of freedom or bondage of the will was the > crucial underlying one of the Reformation. As such, many Lutherans > consider the Bondage of the Will to be Luther's more important > theological work. You may not agree with it, but calling it simply a > temper tantrum seems odd. If you had read this book, you will have noticed that Luther uses terms like "Serpent", and "Devil" to depict Erasmus'es character. I was being generous. If Luther was not angry, then he becomes a cold-blooded slanderer. I don't know about you, but when I use the same characterizations that Luther applied to Erasmus on a fellow human or even on a cat, it's an expression of wrath. Luther's work made me doubt that he was a Christain. Luther certainly didn't sound like he was teasing. I recognize that the same argument can be applied to St. Thomas More, friend of Erasmus, who said that "Luther thinks that he is in the hand of God, but in reality, he is in the anus of Satan." Granted, invective can become funny at times, but it does not belong in a theological argument. > > Are you possibly thinking of Cyril Lucaris, Patriarch of Alexandria, > and later of Constantinople? He is known for being influenced by > Reformed theology. probably correct, but I'll look it up again. > The Confession of Dositheus (1672) was directed > against his position. As you say, it makes it clear that the Eastern > Church did not look kindly on being regarded as Protestant. Actually, > it uses the word predestined, but it teaches that God's predestination > follows from his foreknowledge of how people will use their free-will. This is the Doctrine of Divine Grace, as it is called by Frank Gavin, an Eastern Orthodox writer of the 1920's. Eastern Orthodox thoroughly despise the word "Predestination" almost as much as "Filioque". It reminds them of 3 things: 1) Iconoclasm, where Predestination-Believing Manicheans within their Church destroyed some Icons, and 2) The flack with their "Protestant Patriarch". 3) Islamic Fatalism. The point here was even when it was politically advantageous, the Eastern Orthodox still would not accept Predestination. > This is certainly a rejection of predestination in its usual meaning. > > I'd be interested in more details about the position that you think > the Council of Orange endorsed. Its been a decade since I've read this one. I'll give you my reference next week. Meanwhile, I was of the opinion that this Council's impact was to identify 2 doctrines not accepted by the Church, Pelagianism, and the failure to be Predestined to Heavan is Predestination to Hell (Thus, I regard Orange not making any positve doctrinal statement, but rather several negative statements. This is not to be derrogatory. Galois's proof of no general fifth order equation solution is also negative.) We also must be sure that we are discussing the same Council of Orange, of which I understand there are two. I'll also reexamine K.S. Latoutette's Histories. > It certainly rejected double > predestination, and probably also predestination as held by Luther. > However its position also does not seem consistent with that of > Erasmus or the Confession of Dositheus. It holds that because of > original sin, man is completely helpless, and can do nothing without > God's prior grace. Just because you are completely helpless doesn't mean you have to be happy about it. This is one of Erasmus'es big points. It is like beimg at the bottom of a well with all 4 limbs broken. All you have going for you is a strong pair of teeth, and at least working hearing and vision. God tosses a rescue rope down to you and tells you to bite. Your exercise of Free Will will determine if and how hard you bite. Divine Grace is the fact that you have the opportunity to bite. According to Gavin (cited elsewhere). Divine Grace is Universal but Resistable. Every man can bite, but doesn't have to. I don't see the disagreement you stated above. > However it seems to associate the reception of > this grace with baptism. see comment below on baptism. > I get the impression that (consistent > with at least some of what Augustine said) I simply don't trust Augustine here. He does too many flipflops. He was also a Manichean, and his opinion must be so weighted, even when he seems to be right. > the view is that with > baptism, free will is restored, and then some people choose to > follow God and others not to. Baptism is an external act of Cleansing. It is a blessing, but it will not save by itself. The thief on the right side of Christ was saved without it. Stalin was a priest (by implication, baptised), and could endlessly quote scripture. Stalin, for a good part of life, apparently rejected grace. BELIEVING is where its at. BELIEVING is an act of the WILL. Look at the last verses in Revelation. What happens when you take away from this book? Your name can be taken away from the Book of Life. Martin Luther made it clear that he was not fond of this book when he put it into an appendix, away from the other scripture, like the Catholics do the Apocrypha. Of course, the fact that someone showed that Luther's name in Latin summed to 666 (see Mathematical Circles, I don't remember which volume) may have had something to do with it. > However I'm not entirely sure that's > what they mean. I have the whole document in front of me, but don't > know anything about the theological context, so I'm reluctant to > draw any firm conclusions. If I'm right, this isn't exactly the > same view as Erasmus, or at least I don't think it is. Often, People use different words to say the same thing. The Eastern Orthodox Doctrine of Divine Grace is the same as someone else's Predestination. There may not be a disagreement. A coin has a head and a tail, and looks different on each side, but is still the same coin. > > --clh] your Orthodox Protestant Friend, --ceb
COSC2U2@uhvax1.uh.edu (08/17/89)
Path: elroy!cosc2u2 From: COSC2U2@elroy.uh.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The History of Free Will vs. Predestination Message-ID: <2032@elroy.uh.edu> Date: 16 Aug 89 19:37:14 CDT References: <Aug.14.00.58.54.1989.27654@athos.rutgers.edu> Organization: University of Houston Lines: 153 In article <Aug.14.00.58.54.1989.27654@athos.rutgers.edu>, COSC2U2@uhvax1.uh.edu writes:> > [It's amazingly difficult to be clear about the exact meaning of > Paul's arguments. If you've been following my comments, you know that > I think it is going too far to read Calvin's full double > predestinarian interpretation into Rom 9. I also think it's going too > far to read the later idea that salvation is based on foreknown good > works into Rom 8:29. The word translated here "foreknew" is given the > meaning "chose before" in Gingrich's Shorter Lexicon. The Definition I used, "claimed" came from Evangelical Free Church Literature dated around 1982-1984. It is not too far removed from your "chose before", and I suspect that some other Lexicon would resolve this minor discrepancy. [For example, the German Bible states that Jonah's vine was a pumpkin, what we call a gourd.] > Its use in Rom > 11:2 makes this translation at least plausible, though it seems maybe > a bit too explicitly Reformed. Unfortunately, Paul just doesn't > directly answer 16th Cent. questions. This is one of the reasons I like patristic literature. Get the opinion of a second, third, fourth, or fifth generation disciple. Try the Didache. TV evangelists will HATE this one, especially the Jack Sparks edition. > > Your view of Luther's "Bondage of the Will" seems, shall we say, > quixotic. As moderator I'm not going to go into a lengthy defense of > one side or the other of this argument. But both Erasmus and Luther > agreed that the issue of freedom or bondage of the will was the > crucial underlying one of the Reformation. As such, many Lutherans > consider the Bondage of the Will to be Luther's more important > theological work. You may not agree with it, but calling it simply a > temper tantrum seems odd. If you had read this book, you will have noticed that Luther uses terms like "Serpent", and "Devil" to depict Erasmus'es character. I was being generous. If Luther was not angry, then he becomes a cold-blooded slanderer. I don't know about you, but when I use the same characterizations that Luther applied to Erasmus on a fellow human or even on a cat, it's an expression of wrath. Luther's work made me doubt that he was a Christain. Luther certainly didn't sound like he was teasing. I recognize that the same argument can be applied to St. Thomas More, friend of Erasmus, who said that "Luther thinks that he is in the hand of God, but in reality, he is in the anus of Satan." Granted, invective can become funny at times, but it does not belong in a theological argument. > > Are you possibly thinking of Cyril Lucaris, Patriarch of Alexandria, > and later of Constantinople? He is known for being influenced by > Reformed theology. probably correct, but I'll look it up again. > The Confession of Dositheus (1672) was directed > against his position. As you say, it makes it clear that the Eastern > Church did not look kindly on being regarded as Protestant. Actually, > it uses the word predestined, but it teaches that God's predestination > follows from his foreknowledge of how people will use their free-will. This is the Doctrine of Divine Grace, as it is called by Frank Gavin, an Eastern Orthodox writer of the 1920's. Eastern Orthodox thoroughly despise the word "Predestination" almost as much as "Filioque". It reminds them of 3 things: 1) Iconoclasm, where Predestination-Believing Manicheans within their Church destroyed some Icons, and 2) The flack with their "Protestant Patriarch". 3) Islamic Fatalism. The point here was even when it was politically advantageous, the Eastern Orthodox still would not accept Predestination. > This is certainly a rejection of predestination in its usual meaning. > > I'd be interested in more details about the position that you think > the Council of Orange endorsed. Its been a decade since I've read this one. I'll give you my reference next week. Meanwhile, I was of the opinion that this Council's impact was to identify 2 doctrines not accepted by the Church, Pelagianism, and the failure to be Predestined to Heavan is Predestination to Hell (Thus, I regard Orange not making any positve doctrinal statement, but rather several negative statements. This is not to be derrogatory. Galois's proof of no general fifth order equation solution is also negative.) We also must be sure that we are discussing the same Council of Orange, of which I understand there are two. I'll also reexamine K.S. Latoutette's Histories. > It certainly rejected double > predestination, and probably also predestination as held by Luther. > However its position also does not seem consistent with that of > Erasmus or the Confession of Dositheus. It holds that because of > original sin, man is completely helpless, and can do nothing without > God's prior grace. Just because you are completely helpless doesn't mean you have to be happy about it. This is one of Erasmus'es big points. It is like beimg at the bottom of a well with all 4 limbs broken. All you have going for you is a strong pair of teeth, and at least working hearing and vision. God tosses a rescue rope down to you and tells you to bite. Your exercise of Free Will will determine if and how hard you bite. Divine Grace is the fact that you have the opportunity to bite. According to Gavin (cited elsewhere). Divine Grace is Universal but Resistable. Every man can bite, but doesn't have to. I don't see the disagreement you stated above. > However it seems to associate the reception of > this grace with baptism. see comment below on baptism. > I get the impression that (consistent > with at least some of what Augustine said) I simply don't trust Augustine here. He does too many flipflops. He was also a Manichean, and his opinion must be so weighted, even when he seems to be right. > the view is that with > baptism, free will is restored, and then some people choose to > follow God and others not to. Baptism is an external act of Cleansing. It is a blessing, but it will not save by itself. The thief on the right side of Christ was saved without it. Stalin was a priest (by implication, baptised), and could endlessly quote scripture. Stalin, for a good part of life, apparently rejected grace. BELIEVING is where its at. BELIEVING is an act of the WILL. Look at the last verses in Revelation. What happens when you take away from this book? Your name can be taken away from the Book of Life. Martin Luther made it clear that he was not fond of this book when he put it into an appendix, away from the other scripture, like the Catholics do the Apocrypha. Of course, the fact that someone showed that Luther's name in Latin summed to 666 (see Mathematical Circles, I don't remember which volume) may have had something to do with it. > However I'm not entirely sure that's > what they mean. I have the whole document in front of me, but don't > know anything about the theological context, so I'm reluctant to > draw any firm conclusions. If I'm right, this isn't exactly the > same view as Erasmus, or at least I don't think it is. Often, People use different words to say the same thing. The Eastern Orthodox Doctrine of Divine Grace is the same as someone else's Predestination. There may not be a disagreement. A coin has a head and a tail, and looks different on each side, but is still the same coin. > > --clh] your Orthodox Protestant Friend, --ceb