The Reformers and Church Fathers on Nature, Grace, and Choice

So far, you guys are conceding the Scriptural turf to me. There are passages you can use. You have used them before.

Sorry, I am just not wasting my time on you. I have said my peace and have no plan to get into another long Scriptural argument. You are lost and you will remain lost except that it please God that you should be born of God at some point between now and when you die.

You guys have the cart before the horse. Before you offer your theological conclusions on the passages I quote, whether from the Bible we all accept, or from the rest of LDS Scripture, you must establish first, from God Himself, through study and prayer and living the way you know you should, whether there are true and living apostles and prophets, sent of God, on the earth today, and whether the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are the Word of God.

You have been blinded by Satan and totally pervert the Word of God. Before anything in the Bible will make real sense to you, you will need to be born again. You will see that I am right. Your books have been given to you by the demon Moroni and the demon Mormon. If that doesn't put too fine a point on what those books really are, then I don't know how I could be any less obtuse.

I do believe that there are real prophets alive today. Problem is that you would not know one even if he was speaking to you so if I engage you again, let's just agree that you are free to claim divine authority but I am free to put it to the Sword and not apologize for your claiming I'm being hateful.

Like my Lord, I will preach the Gospel thusly: From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

If that makes me a Calvinist, I guess I are one!

I have a friend who also had no control over his "being saved". He was a die-hard liberal who hated God until the day he met God on his own road to Damascus.

I know many other folks who just never gave much thought to God and Jesus one way or the other, who one day "saw the light". So I can't help but believe that we are predestined by God to either believe or not believe.

Sounds to me like you is a Calvinist all right.

It's interesting how common these stories actually are. One rarely hears many accounts about salvation as a sovereign act of God in the Christian press. More often, you read about people who were saved in church. There is a predominant view of salvation as being primarily institutional among Protestants and Baptists, not too different than in the RC churches. But that is by no means universal if you start to really look.

That was a very thorough and thought-provoking post. Hopefully, ftD will look through it seriously. I think that quite often, it's easy to overlook passages in scripture and their implications. I'm interested to read his subsequent reply to you.

Well, then, this regenerate Christian (that was for RnMom) refers you to my #350 to OP.

After you reread that, it is fine if you do not engage me any further, but since you keep choosing to initiate stuff, let it be on Biblical grounds, or if you are attacking my faith, on LDS Scriptural grounds.

For example, your #196, wherein among other things you bring up the false Adam-God Theory, something you like to think President Young taught, but which he didn't.

You won't be able to back that up from LDS Scripture, so don't bring it up unless you think you can.

Put it another way, if you want to claim I believe something, back it up from Scripture.

You keep being the initiator and the aggressor, Woody, so if you will just button it up there will be no problem.

Your #375: I like to see people admit there are only two possibilities: God's sovereignty or man's sovereignty.

You worded that differently than before, and the difference is huge. Before, you said the two possibilities were that man has a role in responding to God's free offer of saving grace, or man has no role. Your #339 "The key criteria by which we can separate the Calvinists from the Arminians is this: does man play any role in securing salvation? If you believe that man plays any role whatsoever, then you are some variety of Arminian. It's that simple."

Clarify as you wish.

In either case it is fair to say, in my opinion, that God does it all. The issue is whether He sheds forth His grace on those who accept Him as their Savior and are faithful, just, and true, or whether He sheds forth His grace on those He chooses without regard to their faithfulness.

Your objection to my remarks seems meaningless. I think I rephrased but my intest is identical.

My original statement that "If you believe that man plays any role whatsoever, then you are some variety of Arminian" still holds just as true when I say there are two possibilities to who controls salvation: "God's sovereignty or man's sovereignty".

I can't understand how anyone reads any difference between those statements. To me, they are identical. I find it all the more puzzling that you think there is a difference in these statements because you have been around these threads a long time and should be very familiar with this line of reasoning.

As far as your own statement, it seems problematic. It seems that you are suggesting in your phrase "whether He sheds forth His grace on those He chooses without regard to their faithfulness" that you misunderstand what most of mean by the word "grace". Grace is unmerited favor from God. In this sense, it is only by grace that any can be saved. No one is worthy of salvation and there is no work that one can accomplish which then makes one "deserving" of God's grace. Surprisingly enough, WM, what you'll find in the history of the post-Augustinian period is that it is exactly this line of thinking that leads one directly to semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism.

I found some interesting writing recently in Arthur Custance's The Sovereignty of Grace, Chapter 3, From Augustine to the Reformation. It's very interesting in understanding the history of Middle Ages theology and what happened to these ideas after Augustine until the time of Luther and Calvin.

One of Augustine's contemporaries was a man named John Cassian, an introvert with a great love for the contemplative life of the monastery and a yearning for holiness and purity. He was probably of Scythian stock, coming from somewhere near the Black Sea and uprooted by the turmoil of the period that witnessed the sack of Rome by Alaric in 410 A.D.

Settling in southern France near Marseilles, he established a monastery. Many people in those turbulent days were attracted to the life of retreat. Here, convinced in his own soul of the fundamental truth of Augustine's assessment of human nature, and having supported him in his attacks against Pelagius, Cassian now devoted himself to the working out of Augustine's theology as a way of life. But as he observed the effects of the doctrine of free grace upon those who joined his community, he came to the conclusion that Augustine had gone too far.

Men (and women) came to him, desiring to live a life of holiness that they might make themselves worthy recipients of the grace of God and receive the free gift of his salvation. Cassian found it necessary to encourage them to persevere when the flesh and the world proved too much for them. But he soon faced a dilemma--if such a striving after holiness contributed nothing towards ensuring the grace of God unto salvation, then on what basis could he persuade them to continue the struggle? If Augustine was right, the incentive towards godliness was undermined. If such preparation of the soul was not at all necessary, then would not God extend his salvation equally to those who took advantage of their freedom and lived immoral lives and to those who struggled earnestly to prepare themselves?

Cassian did not at first suppose that good behaviour formed the basis of man's salvation, but reason suggested to him that it must surely predispose God to look with favour upon the earnest endeavor of the suppliant and, though it was still an act of pure grace, to be more ready in granting salvation to the prepared soul. But Augustine had insisted that the grace of God preceded any such personal fitness. Man was not called upon to seek to be holy in order that he might be the recipient of grace; he became the recipient of grace in order that he might be holy.

Cassian's theology was, of course, not the theology of revelation but of common sense. The kind of preparatory holiness which he was promoting came to be known as precedent grace. and in a very real sense it was a reflection of the natural grace which Pelagius believed remained to man even in his fallen state. In Cassian's view it did not contribute directly to the salvation of the suppliant but it predisposed God to look upon him with more favour. Cassian did not suppose that man could ever achieve that measure of holiness which would merit eternal life but he did believe that man contributed something by proving himself worthy of God's favour and grace. And he was convinced that unless this was true, the whole concept of monastic life and man's endeavor to seek after holiness would be without purpose. He was not Pelagian in his theology, but in a sense he became the founder of semi-Pelagianism. He was by nature strongly drawn to cloistered life at a time when cloistered life had a tremendous appeal to those who saw the impending collapse of Western civilization. And he saw this kind of life in jeopardy. As a result he made his fears widely known, even though he still considered himself a true disciple of Augustine in every respect.

One individual who learned of these new doubts about Augustinianism was a man named Prosper Tyro of Aquitaine (c. 390-463), about whom comparatively little is known save that he had been an ardent disciple of Augustine though he had never actually met him face to face. Prosper attempted to answer Cassian's criticisms but without apparent success. Accordingly, he wrote to Augustine and asked him to intervene. As a consequence Augustine wrote two treatises: the first was entitled On the Predestination of the Saints, and the second On the Gift of Perseverance. In the first, Augustine reaffirmed that Predestination is in no way based upon foreseen merit in the elect. All a man's strivings in his own strength to achieve holiness of life apart from the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit are in vain, and Augustine explained why this is so. In the second treatise Augustine showed that the Perseverance of the Saints, by which he meant (in modern terminology) the eternal security of the believer, is not dependent upon the good works of the individual believer which would result from his conversion, but entirely upon the constancy and unchangeableness of God's elective choice. Both these replies clearly downgraded the importance of good works or holiness of life in so far as these were regarded as contributing to a man's salvation. Good works were not relevant to salvation. They were, however, relevant to man's fellowship with God and his enjoyment of his Christian life. The reason for "being good" was not to the end of being saved but to the end of living a holy life pleasing to the heavenly Father. These two treatises were sent to Prosper and a coworker named Hilary, and although neither appears to have made any great contribution of their own, Prosper himself did become a leading representative of Augustinian theology after Augustine's death. Yet he departed from one facet of his master's teaching, which others have also found difficult: namely, that Christ died only for the elect. This doctrine was to be termed Limited Atonement by the Reformers who, like Augustine and Calvin, saw it not merely as a view logically consistent in the light of the sovereignty of grace but as the plain teaching of the New Testament.

Gradually Augustinian theology was emasculated by Roman Catholic theologians as a whole, who retained only his emphasis upon the Church of Rome as the sole vehicle of God's dealings with man and the sole channel of salvation. Through the succeeding centuries, semi-Pelagianism became the basic theology of Catholicism; less and less attention was paid to the spiritual impotence of fallen man while more and more was paid to the remnant grace and inherent goodness of man's religious impulses. Man could not be saved apart from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ but that sacrifice alone was not sufficient in itself. It was necessary that man not only accept the Lord's sacrifice but that he strive sincerely after holiness in order to balance the debit account of his own sinful ways. Neither man alone nor Christ alone could save him. Human grace and divine grace must be wedded. Penitence and penance made up for what was lacking in human grace, and God for Christ's sake would then forgive what remained of offense after man had done his best. Baptism, as a rite with magic that worked whether performed by believer or unbeliever, restored the capacity of a person for salvation; good works and faith in Christ's redemption did the rest.

Whether you like Custance's conclusions or not, he raises some interesting points about the history of these ideas during the time between Augustine and the Reformation, a period of many centuries where we should be curious.

That was a very thorough and thought-provoking post. Hopefully, ftD will look through it seriously. I think that quite often, it's easy to overlook passages in scripture and their implications. I'm interested to read his subsequent reply to you. 383 posted on 1/20/02 6:48 PM Pacific by George W. Bushonly if he is, in turn, willing to face up to what Absolute Omniscience + Absolute Omnipotence actually entails.

I would rather be wrong, in accusing him of the spiritually-Fatal socinian heresy, than be right (gosh, I don't wish spiritually fatal heresy on anyone!!). But if I am wrong, and ftD does affirm the absolute Omniscience of God... I think it is fair to ask that he face the theological implications thereof.

BTW, your post on the Lord's Supper was really good. I would only annex to it the observations of my favorite Jewish Christian Presbyter, Steve Schlissel... we need to bring back the Fellowship Supper of the whole Congregation which is the rightful context of the Sacrament of Christian Passover.

You Baptists may be ahead of us Presbyterians in this. But not by much (says the Presbyterian with a Church-provided steak dinner still working his way through his gullet). And it would be a good practice for the whole Church, IMHO, baptists and presbys alike.

Sadly, ftD has gone off to another thread. I hope he will return to answer my #369... But, all as God wills.

Sadly, ftD has gone off to another thread. I hope he will return to answer my #369

Oops! Sorry! He has been addressing something along the Omniscience of God there among all his trash posts. Please bump me when he does....

Your #385:

My original statement that "If you believe that man plays any role whatsoever, then you are some variety of Arminian" still holds just as true when I say there are two possibilities to who controls salvation: "God's sovereignty or man's sovereignty".
I can't understand how anyone reads any difference between those statements. To me, they are identical. I find it all the more puzzling that you think there is a difference in these statements because you have been around these threads a long time and should be very familiar with this line of reasoning.

Oh, yes, I am very familiar with this line of reasoning. My point was that "Man plays any role whatever" and "Man's sovereignty" can be seen to be at opposite ends of the same scale. Put it another way, speaking of God's Sovereignty and Man's sovereignty in the same sentence implies a rough equivalence that hopefully you do not intend to attribute to the Arminians.

To me, "Man's sovereignty controlling salvation" is more like the atheist's position, reliance in vain on the arm of flesh for "salvation", that sort of thing, a far cry from "any role whatever".

Regarding the rest of your post and your interesting excerpt from Custance, it will not surprise you when I say that I am wary of the trend I see in post-apostolic centuries to jump off to one side doctrinally because one is afraid of "falling into the error" of someone else who has jumped off in another direction in response to a third somebody. I would rather live in a day when true apostles and prophets are on the earth so we know how the Word of God is properly interpreted and stick to the strait and narrow.

there is no work that one can accomplish which then makes one "deserving" of God's grace.

Agreed. That is not the point, IMO. The point is that God has made us stewards of earthly things (and spiritual things). We are here to become faithful (if we are willing) in a few things. Our Lord is "looking" for those who are willing to learn trustworthiness that He may make them "rulers over many things", over heavenly things. We must be prepared to give account of our stewardship.

Matthew 25:14, 21
14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods...
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Luke 12:31, 35-36
31 But rather seek ye the kingdom of God ...
35 Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning;
36 And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.

(We can't obey Him, that would be a work! 8=)

Luke 12:42
42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.

1 Corinthians 4:2
2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

This is the Word of God. Do you call this semi-Pelagian?

God will shed forth His grace, His unmerited favor, on those who are willing to learn obedience to God and to Truth, who are willing to learn how to live a holy life, who are willing to learn to be trustworthy, but those who are not willing cannot receive the blessings He has reserved for the faithful, for they would be unfaithful with those responsibilities. What responsibilities? The responsibilities of parents and teachers, for example.

These things have their earthly likeness. If you are a business owner nearing retirement, you owe it to your employees and customers not to turn the business over to your son or daughter until he or she has learned the ropes and has shown himself faithful and trustworthy.

However, even if we should serve Him with our whole souls our entire lives, we would still be unprofitable servants, undeserving of God's grace. His grace, His unmerited favor, is everything in salvation.

That is why I say, that is not the point. We should not try to be deserving (or try to be rulers over many things, or try to be the greatest, or go seeking for rewards or fame). We should do what the Bible says, repent of our sins, ask for God's forgiveness and the benefit of Christ's atonement, and try to be faithful and obedient and holy, as God has commanded, and God will train us for service in His Kingdom, and He will save whom He will, when He will. We may be sure that He has the welfare of His children at heart in everything He does, and has arranged our earthly experiences for our best growth and development, to fulfill our potential.

If you like, you can look at it as two separate things, though in fact the processes run concurrently. For salvation from hell, God requires that we forsake our sins, do them no more, repent of them, look to Christ for forgiveness and cleansing. For achievement of our highest potential, to return to the presence of God, we must learn to obey Him, obey His ordinances, support and sustain the leaders He places over us, be faithful and holy, be valiant in the cause of Christ, and so forth.

Hopefully, this gives you an insight into our way of thinking. It is not semi-Pelagian, or Arian, or Gnostic, or any other sort of heresy. It is Biblical.

Thanks for your fine post.

... we need to bring back the Fellowship Supper of the whole Congregation which is the rightful context of the Sacrament of Christian Passover. You Baptists may be ahead of us Presbyterians in this. But not by much (says the Presbyterian with a Church-provided steak dinner still working his way through his gullet). And it would be a good practice for the whole Church, IMHO, baptists and presbys alike.

Well, they say Baptist men are happiest when Baptist women are cooking. I see no reason why Presbyterians could not match the misogyny of Baptist men in this regard. (Actually, I think the Baptist women probably have this all planned.)

My point was that "Man plays any role whatever" and "Man's sovereignty" can be seen to be at opposite ends of the same scale. Put it another way, speaking of God's Sovereignty and Man's sovereignty in the same sentence implies a rough equivalence that hopefully you do not intend to attribute to the Arminians.

No, they are at the same end of the scale. If man plays any role in salvation, then of necessity he plays the deciding role. You've heard this hundreds of times from us and from authors we quote. I think this particular argument originated with Augustine. That is exactly what we mean. Anything else is a work. Anything else indicates that man has in some way merited his salvation.

To me, "Man's sovereignty controlling salvation" is more like the atheist's position, reliance in vain on the arm of flesh for "salvation", that sort of thing, a far cry from "any role whatever".

I don't grasp what you mean. It's nothing like an atheist who is merely denying the existence of his Creator. And he is probably predestined to that form of Reprobation.

This is the Word of God. Do you call this semi-Pelagian?

I would be inclined to say that it is the interpretation which is semi-Pelagian.

God will shed forth His grace, His unmerited favor, on those who are willing to learn obedience to God and to Truth, who are willing to learn how to live a holy life, who are willing to learn to be trustworthy, but those who are not willing cannot receive the blessings He has reserved for the faithful, for they would be unfaithful with those responsibilities. What responsibilities? The responsibilities of parents and teachers, for example.

Again, you show that you still believe that God looks at men's individual merits. However, if you "merit" your salvation, you have performed a work of some sort. And we are back at a works-based salvation, not the free and unmerited grace of God.

However, even if we should serve Him with our whole souls our entire lives, we would still be unprofitable servants, undeserving of God's grace. His grace, His unmerited favor, is everything in salvation.

And now you turn around again to full, free and unmerited grace in salvation. You really can't have it both ways. Either the grace of God granted to a man is wholly unmerited or it is deserved (or at least the man is more deserving than other men which is the same thing). It is still a work, still a matter of who "deserves" salvation.

That is why I say, that is not the point. We should not try to be deserving (or try to be rulers over many things, or try to be the greatest, or go seeking for rewards or fame). We should do what the Bible says, repent of our sins, ask for God's forgiveness and the benefit of Christ's atonement, and try to be faithful and obedient and holy, as God has commanded, and God will train us for service in His Kingdom, and He will save whom He will, when He will. We may be sure that He has the welfare of His children at heart in everything He does, and has arranged our earthly experiences for our best growth and development, to fulfill our potential.

But you are speaking here as a believer in God. No person prior to salvation truly believes in the God of the Bible. We wouldn't need a saviour if we were capable of that.

Hopefully, this gives you an insight into our way of thinking. It is not semi-Pelagian, or Arian, or Gnostic, or any other sort of heresy. It is Biblical.

I'm afraid it is in the line of Arminians and semi-Pelagians. As I've said so often, there really are only two choices here. But I'm glad you supported your views with the Bible instead of Mormon writings. When supported by orthodox scripture in this way, your post is actually no different than that of any Arminian/semi-Pelagian.

Your #392:

If man plays any role in salvation, then of necessity he plays the deciding role.

I think the language needs to be clarified here. We don't say that a man about to be sentenced for a crime (negative) or a man being considered for promotion or appointive office (positive) "plays a role" in the decision. The decision is made by those in authority after consideration of the facts -- what the man has done. An evaluation is made: is the man ready for the responsibility of the new office, or to be free to roam the streets? When the man's previous actions are considered by those who will decide, this does not give the man the "deciding role", or any role.

Applying this to our discussion, Man does not play a role in his salvation, much less the deciding one. Is it all up to God, and once He decides, God must do all of the saving.

Anything else indicates that man has in some way merited his salvation.

Similarly, we need to clarify what you mean here by "anything else". If a man should in some way merit his salvation, that would be wonderful, but it doesn't happen. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. God has, however, made a way for our escape, and if we obey Him and keep His commandments, if we fulfill the conditions He has set forth, He will fulfill His promises to us. Nevertheless, He passes judgment upon us, and we have no role in that decision. It is all up to Him.

(I am not expecting you to agree with me, just setting forth another way, other than Calvin's, to think about this.)

I would be inclined to say that it is the interpretation [of Matthew 25:14, 21; Luke 12:31, 35-36, 42-44; 1 Corinthians 4:2] which is semi-Pelagian.

Can you elaborate? It does not immediately occur to me how the Calvinist interpretation would be different.

Again, you show that you still believe that God looks at men's individual merits. However, if you "merit" your salvation, you have performed a work of some sort. And we are back at a works-based salvation, not the free and unmerited grace of God.

As I have shown above, our desires and actions, call them "merits" and "demerits" if you will, are considered by God in His decision, but this does not give us a role in the decision, much less a decisive one. Hopefully we are performing good works every day. We are commanded to do so continually. But a "works-based salvation"? No. We can't obtain a ticket to heaven by doing X, Y, and Z. We are saved by His unmerited grace, if God so decides. We may have learned and obeyed a lot, we may have become strong in righteousness, we may have done all that God commanded us to do, but we still don't deserve His blessings, we are still unprofitable servants, and we still have no say in God's decision to save or not save. But God is willing, in our personal private prayers, to let us know where we stand before Him as we go along.

And now you turn around again to full, free and unmerited grace in salvation. You really can't have it both ways. Either the grace of God granted to a man is wholly unmerited or it is deserved (or at least the man is more deserving than other men which is the same thing). It is still a work, still a matter of who "deserves" salvation.

As you can see from the above, I am not trying to have it both ways. It is not a matter of deserving salvation. We don't deserve it. But in God's eyes we may have forsaken our sins, so that He can make us clean, and learned enough and grown enough to be able to handle the responsibility of dwelling with the righteous.

But you are speaking here as a believer in God. No person prior to salvation truly believes in the God of the Bible. We wouldn't need a saviour if we were capable of that.

You speak of salvation as something that happens at the beginning of our Christian career, and the rest of life is just marking time. (I know you don't live like that.) But we are still in our mortal probation. We still have our free will, to progress in righteousness or to backslide. We do not stand at the brink of heaven or hell until we stand before the bar of God on Judgment Day. That is when we are saved or cast into hell to suffer for our sins. If we think we know before then what His decision will be, we are deceiving ourselves. We are taking the Judgment out of Judgment Day, telling Him He can't consider anything we did since our initial conversion, which is nonsense. But as I said, we can know where we stand before Him now.

Bumping for an answer from ftd #369. Does ftd deny God's Omniscience or not? Tune in "same thread time; same thread channel.!"