Posted on 09/26/2006 3:48:44 PM PDT by annalex
Men are possessed of free will, and endowed with the faculty of making a choice. It is not true, therefore, that some are by nature good, and others bad.
1. This expression [of our Lord], "How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not," set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, "But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God." "But glory and honour," he says, "to every one that doeth good." God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.
2. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it -- some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets.
3. For this reason the Lord also said, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." And, "Take heed to yourselves, lest perchance your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and worldly cares." And, "Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning, and ye like unto men that wait for their Lord, when He returns from the wedding, that when He cometh and knocketh, they may open to Him. Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when He cometh, shall find so doing." And again, "The servant who knows his Lord's will, and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes." And, "Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" And again, "But if the servant say in his heart, The Lord delayeth, and begin to beat his fellow-servants, and to eat, and drink, and to be drunken, his Lord will come in a day on which he does not expect Him, and shall cut him in sunder, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites." All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man, and at the same time the counsel which God conveys to him, by which He exhorts us to submit ourselves to Him, and seeks to turn us away from [the sin of] unbelief against Him, without, however, in any way coercing us.
4. No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man's power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says, "All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient;" referring both to the liberty of man, in which respect "all things are lawful," God exercising no compulsion in regard to him; and [by the expression] "not expedient" pointing out that we "should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness,. for this is not expedient. And again he says, "Speak ye every man truth with his neighbour." And, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor scurrility, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks." And, "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk honestly as children of the light, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in anger and jealousy. And such were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified in the name of our Lord." If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.
5. And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, "According to thy faith be it unto thee; " thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, "All things are possible to him that believeth;" and, "Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee." Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. And for this reason, "he that believeth in Him has eternal life while he who believeth not the Son hath not eternal life, but the wrath of God shall remain upon him." In the same manner therefore the Lord, both showing His own goodness, and indicating that man is in his own free will and his own power, said to Jerusalem, "How often have I wished to gather thy children together, as a hen [gathereth] her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate."
6. Those, again, who maintain the opposite to these ['conclusions], do themselves present the Lord as destitute of power, as if, forsooth, He were unable to accomplish what He willed; or, on the other hand, as being ignorant that they were by nature "material," as these men express it, and such as cannot receive His immortality. "But He should not," say they, "have created angels of such a nature that they were capable of transgression, nor men who immediately proved ungrateful towards Him; for they were made rational beings, endowed with the power of examining and judging, and were not [formed] as things irrational or of a [merely] animal nature, which can do nothing of their own will, but are drawn by necessity and compulsion to what is good, in which things there is one mind and one usage, working mechanically in one groove (inflexibiles el sine judicio), who are incapable of being anything else except just what they had been created." But upon this supposition, neither would what is good be grateful to them, nor communion with God be precious, nor would the good be very much to be sought after, which would present itself without their own proper endeavour, care, or study, but would be implanted of its own accord and without their concern. Thus it would come to pass, that their being good would be of no consequence, because they were so by nature rather than by will, and are possessors of good spontaneously, not by choice; and for this reason they would not understand this fact, that good is a comely thing, nor would they take pleasure in it. For how can those who are ignorant of good enjoy it? Or what credit is it to those who have not aimed at it? And what crown is it to those who have not followed in pursuit of it, like those victorious in the contest?
7. On this account, too, did the Lord assert that the kingdom of heaven was the portion of "the violent;" and He says, "The violent take it by force;" that is, those who by strength and earnest striving axe on the watch to snatch it away on the moment. On this account also Paul the Apostle says to the Corinthians, "Know ye not, that they who run in a racecourse, do all indeed run, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. Every one also who engages in the contest is temperate in all things: now these men ida it] that they may obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. But I so run, not as uncertainty; I fight, not as One beating the air; but I make my body livid, and bring it into subjection, lest by any means, when preaching to others, I may myself be rendered a castaway." This able wrestler, therefore, exhorts us to the struggle for immortality, that we may be crowned, and may deem the crown precious, namely, that which is acquired by our struggle, but which does not encircle us of its own accord (sed non ultro coalitam). And the harder we strive, so much is it the more valuable; while so much the more valuable it is, so much the more should we esteem it. And indeed those things axe not esteemed so highly which come spontaneously, as those which are reached by much anxious care. Since, then, this power has been conferred upon us, both the Lord has taught and the apostle has enjoined us the more to love God, that we may reach this [prize] for ourselves by striving after it. For otherwise, no doubt, this our good would be [virtually] irrational, because not the result of trial. Moreover, the faculty of seeing would not appear to be so desirable, unless we had known what a loss it were to be devoid of sight; and health, too, is rendered all the more estimable by an acquaintance with disease; light, also, by contrasting it with darkness; and life with death. Just in the same way is the heavenly kingdom honourable to those who have known the earthly one. But in proportion as it is more honourable, so much the more do we prize it; and if we have prized it more, we shall be the more glorious in the presence of God. The Lord has therefore endured all these things on our behalf, in order that we, having been instructed by means of them all, may be in all respects circumspect for the time to come, and that, having been rationally taught to love God, we may continue in His perfect love: for God has displayed long-suffering in the case of man's apostasy; while man has been instructed by means of it, as also the prophet says, "Thine own apostasy shall heal thee;" God thus determining all things beforehand for the bringing of man to perfection, for his edification, and for the revelation of His dispensations, that goodness may both be made apparent, and righteousness perfected, and that the Church may be fashioned after the image of His Son, and that man may finally be brought to maturity at some future time, becoming ripe through such privileges to see and comprehend God.
Nothing against Calvin in there.
If they did not square, then Irenaeus's view, as closer to the apostolic teaching, would have prevailed.
However, the contradiction between Irenaeus and Orange does not exist, as the quotation you chose shows. The contradiction is with Calvin's teaching on depravity of man and predestination of the reprobates.
What particular comments from Calvin do you have in mind?
Since Irenaeus was only one person, wouldn't you also need to demonstrate this was the universal position of the church?
More specifically, what is the universal position of the Church on predestination?
"Jesus handed over according to the definite plan of God"600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.396
395 Acts 4:27-28; cf. Ps 2:1-2.
396 Cf. Mt 26:54; Jn 18:36; 19:11; Acts 3:17-18.
Also see
Catholic Predestination
by Ludwig Ott
IntroductionThe Catholic Church, following St. Augustine (e.g., Grace and Free Will, 1,1; Sermon 169, 11,13), accepts predestination of the elect to heaven, but also affirms the freedom of the human will, thus staking out a position distinct from Calvinism. Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man's free will, and foreseen sins, so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double predestination is rejected).
God is sovereign, in our view, every bit as much as in Protestantism (particularly Calvinism), as will amply be demonstrated below. All that is disputed are the intricacies of the grace / free will antinomy, which is one of the most mysterious and difficult questions in the history of both Christian theology and theistic philosophy. Of course, the allowance of free will is also present in Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, most charismatic, non-denominational and Baptist theologies, etc.
The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a de fide dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty), while at the same time affirming free will and the possibility of falling away from the faith. The following material from Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974 {orig. 1952}, pp.242-45) ought to be most helpful for Protestants seeking to understand what Catholics believe about this ever-mysterious, controversial, complex, highly abstract theological question:
Chosen In Him: The Catholic Teaching on Predestination
Issue: How does the Catholic Church understand predestination?
Response: Predestination is a term used to identify God’s plan of salvation, in which according to His own decree, He “accomplishes all things according to his will” (Eph. 1:11). God gives us the gift of salvation through grace and faith. In turn, we must use our free will to persevere in good works “prepared beforehand” by God Himself (Eph. 2:8-10; cf. Phil. 2:12, 13).
Discussion: There are two opposite and equally erroneous positions about predestination that have always been rejected in authentic Catholic teaching. The first is that of the Pelagians.[1] Pelagius taught that a person, by the exercise his free will, could obtain salvation unaided by grace. The obvious error here is that God has nothing to do with salvation.
Calvinists and Jansenists teach the second error.[2] They teach that Christ died only for the elect; those predestined to salvation. The rest He predestined to eternal damnation by His own decree. Furthermore, they taught that if God predestined someone to eternal life, it is impossible that he should fall away. Likewise, one chosen for damnation has no choice in the matter, but will surely perish in hell. In short, the individual has nothing to do with his own salvation.
This is a more popular in form essay from an Orthodox source.
On Predestination
From the Writings of Bishop Elias MinatiosThe day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. (John 1:43) There is nothing as proud or as curious as the human mind. Though sin has severely weakened it, though faith demands of it blind obedience, it nonetheless still spreads one hundred wings in order to fly up to the highest height; it opens one hundred eyes to investigate the greatest secrets. Yet, all would be well, if it strained so in order to investigate the wondrous works of nature on earth, for this is the innate inclination of man through which he is led to the understanding of all that exists. But, the mind attempts to penetrate the very intangible depths of divine judgements, as if to check that the most high providence of God directs everything wisely and deals properly in regard to the affairs of humans. This is obscene arrogance! Divine predestination is one of the most inaccessible mysteries, locked in the abyss of divine reason and wisdom. The human mind, short on comprehension and limited in its ability to grasp concepts, will never be able to understand this mystery even if it studies and investigates it endlessly. Oh, you learned theologians, I know how you deliberate on divine predestination. You say: "predestination is the foreknowledge and preparation of God's good things by which those who are saved are unalterably saved; that it is the ascension of rational creatures to eternal life, and is the process of being chosen to grace and glory." Yet you do not understand that God foresees from the beginning all that people do within time, that this divine foreknowledge is stable, but the works of humans within time are free. How can we reconcile the unchangeability of God's providence with the free self-determination of intelligent creatures? How is it that the immutability of divine decisions does not lead to inevitability? Why is it beyond question and not subject to chance?
This is a good treatment of the Calvinist TULIP:
A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP
By JAMES AKINPREDESTINATION means many things to many people. All Christian churches believe in some form of predestination, because the Bible uses the term, [See Rom. 8:29-30, Eph. 1:5, 11. For the Catholic Church's teaching on predestination see Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 242-244, and William G. Most, Catholic Apologetics Today, 114-122], but what predestination is and how it works are in dispute.
In Protestant circles there are two major camps when it comes to predestination: Calvinism and Arminianism. [Calvinists are followers of John Calvin (1509-1564). Arminians are followers of Jacob Arminius (1560-1609), not people from the Republic of Armenia]. Calvinism is common in Presbyterian, Reformed, and a few Baptist churches. Arminianism is common in Methodist, Pentecostal, and most Baptist churches.[ In Catholic circles, the two major groups discussing predestination are the Thomists and the Molinists, the followers of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and Luis de Molina (1536-1600). Thomists emphasize the role of grace, while Molinists emphasize free will. Neither school ignores grace or free will].
Even though Calvinists are a minority among Protestants today, their view has had enormous influence, especially in this country. This is partly because the Puritans and the Baptists who helped found America were Calvinists, but it is also because Calvinism traditionally has been found among the more intellectual Protestants, giving it a special influence.
But it's not Calvin.
I would think that someone who took the time to take a potshot at a great church father -- who wrote thousands of pages and preached hundreds of sermons and who had the greatest respect for the earlier church fathers -- would have the decency to actually read Calvin.
[...]Calvin's attempt to cram his theological speculation of limited atonement into this context is nothing but fraud. It would be excusable to skim 1 Timothy 2:1-5 alone, discover that it is talking about kings and hastily conclude that "all" means "men of all social class". But Calvin has just gone over the first chapter and commented (feebly but lengthily) on Hymeneus and Alexander. He saw the context. He just wants to lead us away from it.
I think I need a drink
He does not understand the scripture he quotes, and I am left with the impression that he does not care very much, happy to present the first excuse that turns up when the scripture does not agree with him. I pointed out several examples in my previous posts.
In this discourse about the Eucharist, we see that same regrettable quality. [...]
[...] So wat fills this 60 chapters that an AWANA kid would not figure out from the scant verses mentioned? Angry extrascriptural speculation.
When you see a 24 volume, concise commentary on the Holy Scriptures laying out a well documented theology with valid scripture references coming out of the Roman Catholic Church, give me a call. You guys can even use a word processor. Start with the veneration of Mary, praying to the dead, and the paying of getting love ones out of purgatory. I'd love to see the concise references that justify these practices. I'll compare anything of Calvin (even the stuff I don't agree with) with the gobbly-gook that represents theology on newadvent.
It is rather disingenuous IMO for someone who base their theology on external writings to say someone else ignorant of the scriptures.
BTW-You spell "theoloian" and "ingnorance" wrong. As I'm often in a hurry and make typing errors I can understand. However, in this case, if you are going to huddle insults by saying a theologian is ignorant, then I would be careful to use the spell checker. It doesn't boost your cause.
My points stand: St. Ireneaus based his book, quoted here, squarely on the text of the Holy Scripture; I did read Calvin (Topcat complained thaty no one does) and did not see any fidelity to the scripture. Granted, I did not read the 24 volumes, but I read what Calvin's defenders offeres as arguments from Calvin.
Now, if you wish to compare the wordcount of Calvin's work to the wordcount of Adversus Haereses, you might have a point there.
Would you agree with Augustine's statement?
God wishes salvation of all men, and He calls all men to sainthood (1 Timothy 2:4, Matthew 5:48). This is the strength given ab initio, from which our will proceeds for the good. I am pretty sure St. Augustine meant just that; it is probably not how you read it. Why do I say so? -- Because if you read St. Augustine talking about "call" you are likely to understand it in terms of a Protestant altar call, -- which is properly not the Divine call itself but a man's response to it. At any rate I find St. Irenaeus dispositive when he says, with great clarity,
God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do[...]
All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man, and at the same time the counsel which God conveys to him, by which He exhorts us to submit ourselves to Him, and seeks to turn us away from [the sin of] unbelief against Him, without, however, in any way coercing us.
[...]
because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.
5. And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, "According to thy faith be it unto thee; " thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own
Well, this is where I came in. Even the most belligerent Calvin-haters would not be so bold as to make such a silly remark.
I leave you to your fantasy world.
As to belligerence,
Here is a sample of Papa Calvin's reasoning skill:
the devil has introduced the fashion of celebrating the Supper without any doctrine, and for doctrine has substituted ceremonies partly inept and of no utility, and partly dangerous, having proved the cause of much mischief. To such an extent has this been done, that the Mass, which in the Popish Church is held to be the Supper, is, when well explained, nothing but pure apishness and buffoonery. I call it apishness, because they there counterfeit the Lord's Supper without reason, just as an ape at random and without discernment imitates what he sees done.Wipe the froth off his mouth and you'll see -- nothing.
This has been the call of some for just about 2000 years by millions of people. Sorry, it's not true. If it was true God would save all men. But I suppose if you keep saying it loud and long enough others will continue to believe this lie.
Because if you read St. Augustine talking about "call" you are likely to understand it in terms of a Protestant altar call, -- which is properly not the Divine call itself but a man's response to it. At any rate I find St. Irenaeus dispositive when he says, with great clarity,
I find Augustine to be clearer than Irenaeus:
"Many hear the word of truth; but some believe, while others contradict. Therefore, the former will to believe; the latter do not will." Who does not know this? Who can deny this? But since in some the will is prepared by the Lord, in others it is not prepared, we must assuredly be able to distinguish what comes from God's mercy, and what from His judgment."
[...]
But it is the Father's gift that this may be the case. Moreover, a little after He says, "Murmur not among yourselves. No one can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all teachable of God. Every man that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me." [John 6.43.] What is the meaning of, "Every man that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me," except that there is none who hears from the Father, and learns, who cometh not to me? For if every one who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes, certainly every one who does not come has not heard from the Father; for if he had heard and learned, he would come.
[...]
Why, then, does He not teach all that they may come to Christ, except because all whom He teaches, He teaches in mercy, while those whom He teaches not, in judgment He teaches not? Since, "On whom He will He has mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth." [Rom 9.18.]
[...]
Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God's gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some, while to some it is not given.
Your argument is with the scripture, not me. "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature", Mark 16:15, and similar in every gospel.
"Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God's gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some, while to some it is not given."
The call is to all. Faith is a response that different people have differently. Faith can be increased (Luke 17:5) or destroyed (1 Timothy 1:19).
The trouble is a person CAN'T hear the call unless God grants them understanding.
Luk 8:10 And He said, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that SEEING THEY MAY NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND.
The ability to believe the Gospel -- that is, deposit of faith -- is given everyone, or Christ would not be calling us to have childlike faith. The distinction with the parables is temporal, preceding the Resurrection and the Great Commission, according to which the entire gospel is to be preached to "all creation". The church is sent to overcome the limited ability of some to understand the scripture; such understanding, however, cannot be equated with faith.
I find it, however, remarkable that you acknowledge that the call is to all. Is it the standard Calvinist teaching? How does it square with the notion that God does not want all to be saved?
1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
2Th 3:2 and that we will be rescued from perverse and evil men; for not all have faith.
Of Effectual Calling
I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.
II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.
III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested. Check here for the Westminster Confession scriptural references
It is true that the man limited to his passions (more precise meaning of 1 Cor 2:14) cannot understand the Spirit without God calling him; but God does call. What remains is the response of faith, and not all respond.
I am intrigued by this "outward call", and your quote from the Confession does not really elucidate that. What I see looks comical: God calling everyone ("outwardly", you say) but at the same time winks to some "effectually", and those who receive a call but not a wink are somehow called and not called at the same time. In my simple Catholic mind God either call or He doesn't call, -- no mixed signals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.