Augustine: Gnostic Heretic and Corrupter of the Church

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Seth The Presbyterian

Puritan Board Freshman
My wife and I visited with her parents last night, who despise Calvinism, and they shared this article they found with me. It was almost like a "mic drop" moment for them. It's fairly long and quite obvious no serious research went into it however, I would definitely appreciate some thoughts and serious critiques of this article as we will be going back this evening and I'm sure it will be brought up again. Thanks in advance!

Article Here's a link to the article: https://crosstheology.wordpress.com/augustine-gnostic-heretic-and-corruptor-of-the-church/
 
Even if it were true, and it's not, it completely ignores the Eastern Church, for whom Augustine was only a peripheral influence.
 
Seth The Presbyterian said:
My wife and I visited with her parents last night, who despise Calvinism, and they shared this article they found with me. It was almost like a "mic drop" moment for them. It's fairly long and quite obvious no serious research went into it however, I would definitely appreciate some thoughts and serious critiques of this article as we will be going back this evening and I'm sure it will be brought up again. Thanks in advance!

Article Here's a link to the article: https://crosstheology.wordpress.com/augustine-gnostic-heretic-and-corruptor-of-the-church/
Click to expand...

A little more context regarding the background of her parents would be helpful.

1. For example, are her parents open theists? The author of the post comments towards the bottom:

"The best philosophical and biblical option in this regard seems to be Open Theism to me."

2. Are they Protestants? If so, then are the positions of theologians in church history the "mic drop" standard according to which you should be discussing with them?

3. Do they, like the author, deny the doctrine of original sin? If so, on what just grounds do they think infants die? In particular, do they think newborn infants or infants in the womb freely choose to sin? If so, see Romans 9:11.

4. Augustine was a brilliant systematician, but he needn't be defended on all points. He denied the perseverance of the saints, for example, while coherently retaining sola gratia (link).

Nevertheless, vague assertions that Augustine's thought on the subject of man's will is suspect due to his former position of Manichaeism is a genetic fallacy. The author even acknowledges:

Surprisingly, when Augustine first joined the Christian Church, he began teaching the freedom of the will when debating against the Manichaeans.
Click to expand...

To suppose any later reticence by Augustine to attribute a large degree of freedom to the will in Adam's progeny implies Augustine reverted to Manichaeism is an assertion in search of an argument - an argument you won't find in that article nor in its quotes of Julian, Pretyman, et al..

5. Augustine did not dichotomize volition and necessity. For example, see Augustine's Against Two Letters of the Pelagians (Book I, Chapter 7):

“It is not, therefore, true, as some affirm that we say, and as that correspondent of yours ventures moreover to write, that “all are forced into sin,” as if they were unwilling, “by the necessity of their flesh;” but if they are already of the age to use the choice of their own mind, they are both retained in sin by their own will, and by their own will are hurried along from sin to sin. For even he who persuades and deceives does not act in them, except that they may commit sin by their will, either by ignorance of the truth or by delight in iniquity, or by both evils, as well of blindness as of weakness. But this will, which is free in evil things because it takes pleasure in evil, is not free in good things, for the reason that it has not been made free.” (Chapter 7)
Click to expand...

That is, there is always the question of semantics. What is choice? And what is free choice?
 
Knight said:
A little more context regarding the background of her parents would be helpful.

1. For example, are her parents open theists? The author of the post comments towards the bottom:

"The best philosophical and biblical option in this regard seems to be Open Theism to me."

2. Are they Protestants? If so, then are the positions of theologians in church history the "mic drop" standard according to which you should be discussing with them?

3. Do they, like the author, deny the doctrine of original sin? If so, on what just grounds do they think infants die? In particular, do they think newborn infants or infants in the womb freely choose to sin? If so, see Romans 9:11.

4. Augustine was a brilliant systematician, but he needn't be defended on all points. He denied the perseverance of the saints, for example, while coherently retaining sola gratia (link).

Nevertheless, vague assertions that Augustine's thought on the subject of man's will is suspect due to his former position of Manichaeism is a genetic fallacy. The author even acknowledges:



To suppose any later reticence by Augustine to attribute a large degree of freedom to the will in Adam's progeny implies Augustine reverted to Manichaeism is an assertion in search of an argument - an argument you won't find in that article nor in its quotes of Julian, Pretyman, et al..

5. Augustine did not dichotomize volition and necessity. For example, see Augustine's Against Two Letters of the Pelagians (Book I, Chapter 7):



That is, there is always the question of semantics. What is choice? And what is free choice?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what their exact theological position is. They are comfortable being as inconsistent as necessary as long it means they reject Calvinism - due to some personal issues in the past supposedly. Her mom seemed to deny original sin last evening. She kept asking us how a baby is able to sin, and if it can't commit a sin then why would it be guilty? So it would seem that she denies the imputation of Adam's sin to all of us. They don't want to be called Arminians, her dad seemed to suggest that Pelagius didn't stay a heretic until the end..? A lot of weird eye-opening concerns arose last night that have us concerned.
 
Seth The Presbyterian said:
I have no idea what their exact theological position is. They are comfortable being as inconsistent as necessary as long it means they reject Calvinism - due to some personal issues in the past supposedly. Her mom seemed to deny original sin last evening. She kept asking us how a baby is able to sin, and if it can't commit a sin then why would it be guilty? So it would seem that she denies the imputation of Adam's sin to all of us.
Click to expand...
I dealt with almost this exact same situation, 2 years ago. I will try to give some advice later on, time permitting.
 
Seth The Presbyterian said:
I have no idea what their exact theological position is. They are comfortable being as inconsistent as necessary as long it means they reject Calvinism - due to some personal issues in the past supposedly. Her mom seemed to deny original sin last evening. She kept asking us how a baby is able to sin, and if it can't commit a sin then why would it be guilty? So it would seem that she denies the imputation of Adam's sin to all of us. They don't want to be called Arminians, her dad seemed to suggest that Pelagius didn't stay a heretic until the end..? A lot of weird eye-opening concerns arose last night that have us concerned.
Click to expand...

Again: if babies aren't guilty, on what just grounds do they die?

In the case you're describing, a better tact than hitting them with well-reasoned rebuttals might be to ask questions to get a sense of their actual beliefs. Ask for understanding first, then perhaps ask further probing thoughts for their and your reflection.

Of course, keep in mind that you (and your wife, I gather) better understand that resistance to the truth of God's word is never merely due to rational barriers. They need your prayers and God's grace. My above advice isn't for you to attempt to manipulate the situation, but we do recognize that while God is in control, He works through ordained, ordinary means... like you. To that end:

Colossians 4:6 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

Proverbs 25:28 A man without self-control is like a city broken into and left without walls.
 
Knight said:
Again: if babies aren't guilty, on what just grounds do they die?

In the case you're describing, a better tact than hitting them with well-reasoned rebuttals might be to ask questions to get a sense of their actual beliefs. Ask for understanding first, then perhaps ask further probing thoughts for their and your reflection.

Of course, keep in mind that you (and your wife, I gather) better understand that resistance to the truth of God's word is never merely due to rational barriers. They need your prayers and God's grace. My above advice isn't for you to attempt to manipulate the situation, but we do recognize that while God is in control, He works through ordained, ordinary means... like you. To that end:

Colossians 4:6 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

Proverbs 25:28 A man without self-control is like a city broken into and left without walls.
Click to expand...
They (her parents) would say a loving God wouldn't condemn a child for a sin it didn't commit. And thank you for the helpful reminders.
 
Seth The Presbyterian said:
My wife and I visited with her parents last night, who despise Calvinism, and they shared this article they found with me. It was almost like a "mic drop" moment for them. It's fairly long and quite obvious no serious research went into it however, I would definitely appreciate some thoughts and serious critiques of this article as we will be going back this evening and I'm sure it will be brought up again. Thanks in advance!

Article Here's a link to the article: https://crosstheology.wordpress.com/augustine-gnostic-heretic-and-corruptor-of-the-church/
Click to expand...
The problem is the term Gnostic gets thrown around too often without proper definition, and we see the author does just this, anything he does not like gets labeled Gnostic. The Scriptures actually use the term in both a positive and negative way:

For example Here is some ways its used in a positive sense:

Colossians 2:3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

See also Luke 1:77; 11:52. Romans 2:20; 11:33; 15:14. 1 Corinthians 1:5; 8:1, 1, 7, 10, 11; 12:8; 13:2, 8; 14:6. 2 Corinthians 2:14; 4:6; 6:6; 8:7; 10:5; 11:6. Ephesians 3:19. Philippians 3:8. Colossians 2:3. 1 Peter 3:7. 2 Peter 1:5, 6; 3:18.

There is also the negative sense in terms of secret knowledge

James 3:14-15 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisyThis wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.”

So throwing a term around without proper context does not help, secondly simply cause Augustine believed things similar to Reformed does not refute it, it is simply a genetic fallacy. That is like Atheists or those that deny the flood because other cultures also have a flood narrative, it is the same line of argument.

Thirdly, There were Jews who believed in similar ideas long before Augustine I actually wrote an article on this you might find helpful:

christophercunningham.substack.com

Dead Sea Scrolls and the Doctrine of Predestination and Election.

1QH:I:1:17–22
christophercunningham.substack.com christophercunningham.substack.com

Josephus also talks about this in Ant. 18.1.3. So Augustine did not come up with the idea or concept.

In addition, James White did a Dividing Line on this issue concerning Ken Wilson, he makes similar claims that the author of of that blog does as well so check out that program. Hope that helps.
 
ReformedChristian said:
The problem is the term Gnostic gets thrown around too often without proper definition, and we see the author does just this, anything he does not like gets labeled Gnostic. The Scriptures actually use the term in both a positive and negative way:

For example Here is some ways its used in a positive sense:

Colossians 2:3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

See also Luke 1:77; 11:52. Romans 2:20; 11:33; 15:14. 1 Corinthians 1:5; 8:1, 1, 7, 10, 11; 12:8; 13:2, 8; 14:6. 2 Corinthians 2:14; 4:6; 6:6; 8:7; 10:5; 11:6. Ephesians 3:19. Philippians 3:8. Colossians 2:3. 1 Peter 3:7. 2 Peter 1:5, 6; 3:18.

There is also the negative sense in terms of secret knowledge

James 3:14-15 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisyThis wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.”

So throwing a term around without proper context does not help, secondly simply cause Augustine believed things similar to Reformed does not refute it, it is simply a genetic fallacy. That is like Atheists or those that deny the flood because other cultures also have a flood narrative, it is the same line of argument.

Thirdly, There were Jews who believed in similar ideas long before Augustine I actually wrote an article on this you might find helpful:

christophercunningham.substack.com

Dead Sea Scrolls and the Doctrine of Predestination and Election.

1QH:I:1:17–22
christophercunningham.substack.com christophercunningham.substack.com

Josephus also talks about this in Ant. 18.1.3. So Augustine did not come up with the idea or concept.

In addition, James White did a Dividing Line on this issue concerning Ken Wilson, he makes similar claims that the author of of that blog does as well so check out that program. Hope that helps.
Click to expand...
Love James White! Will definitely check it out. Thanks for the great info!
 
I've read Ken Wilson's longer work. It's not work that can be taken seriously by scholar or layman - but it is extremely valuable to those who have an axe to grind against Calvinism.

In KW's longer work (I am not familiar with the author or work referenced in this thread) he basically "debunks" Calvinism by attacking alleged inconsistencies in Augustine and then making the stretch that since Augustine's philosophy is flawed, Calvinism must also be an untenable worldview.

Some of the problems with his critique of Augustine have already been pointed out here. He can't distinguish between the errors of Manicheanism and the parts of the Manichean worldview that overlapped with the current of the times and with Christianity. His argument that Augustine "reverted" to Manicheanism is absurd and doesn't make nearly as much sense as the much simpler thesis that Augustine adapted and refined his thought to meet the challenge of Pelagianism, and drew upon the best parts of his education and background to do so.

His gigantic leap from Augustine to Calvin is so absurd as to make his earlier arguments plausible by comparison. It's as if he's not aware that there are differences between Augustine and Reformed theology, or that Reformed theology did not hesitate to embrace some aspects of Augustinian thought while rejecting others.

And, indeed, I truly don't think he is aware. He has no idea what either Augustine or Calvin taught, as far as I can tell, on any major theological heading. He openly proclaims to the reader that they should be free to choose ANY stripe of Christianity - Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox - so long as it's not "Augustinian Calvinism". Lest you think I am guilty of hyperbole, read his work for yourself and see.
 
Oh, and to top it off, he loudly announces that he will not engage with any reviews, replies, or rebuttals from anyone who hasn't read all of Augustine's works like he has, and who hasn't read all of his own writings on Augustine. Reading him makes me want to be a biblicist. (Don't worry, @RamistThomist, I won't give in to the temptation.)

I do realize that going on a rant about Ken Wilson is a bit off-topic and I don't mean to hijack the thread - just sharing some thoughts that I think would apply broadly to most of the anti-Calvinist straw men of such ilk.
 
LittleFaith said:
Oh, and to top it off, he loudly announces that he will not engage with any reviews, replies, or rebuttals from anyone who hasn't read all of Augustine's works like he has, and who hasn't read all of his own writings on Augustine. Reading him makes me want to be a biblicist. (Don't worry, @RamistThomist, I won't give in to the temptation.)

I do realize that going on a rant about Ken Wilson is a bit off-topic and I don't mean to hijack the thread - just sharing some thoughts that I think would apply broadly to most of the anti-Calvinist straw men of such ilk.
Click to expand...
Pretty much anything Ken has said is what ever other person who has an ax to grind has said on the issue.
 
I mentioned that I would share a little bit of my similar experience. Without going into all the details, after my wife began sharing the gospel with family members, I was confronted by my father in-law, and brother in-law.

After some back and forth questions, they continued to ask, "How come all babies go to heaven?" I wasn't interested in discussing the salvation of elect infants, so I tried to keep to the topic at hand, namely, the need for the gospel to be proclaimed to the lost.

However they continued to drive the idea, that, "Since all babies go to heaven, and babies can't understand the gospel, they don't have to do anything."

This immediately turned into, "Since babies and children don't need the gospel, neither do native Americans who never heard the gospel".

Eventually it devolved into, "No one has to hear or believe anything. What you believe has nothing to do with salvation."

I took them to Romans 10:14, to no avail. They had latched on to this idea, that neither they, nor anyone else, had any responsibility for sin (definitely not imputed sin), and no obligation to repent or believe. Most all of this line of thought came from the explicit examples they gave of infants, literal blind/deaf men, and indigenous peoples, being spared for their innocence.

From the very beginning of the confrontation, they handed me their Bible to read from (their idea and they insisted). By the end, they were telling me it was just the word of man, and had been corrupted.

Fast forward a few weeks, and I had been essentially been labeled as the antichrist. They cut me off completely, and began telling people they think I'm abusing my wife, that I brainwashed her. We have no contact with them. I still pray for them.

I struggled with the words exchanged, and the events after for a good while. Wondered if I had foolishly offended them without cause, if i represented the teaching of the Lord accurately, if I had grieved my brother, etc.

Today however, I don't think I was unnecessarily offensive, or unbiblical in my presentation. I am convinced that what transpired that night was the working out of 2 Corinthians 2:15-16. I was the savour of death unto death for them, in that instance.

Talk to your wife about every conversation. Think about how you both plan to interact with them. Do not give them an occasion to drive a wedge in between you. I don't know your exact situation, but seek the Lord's guidance, and be meek, yet solemn and steadfast.
 
MyCrows said:
I mentioned that I would share a little bit of my similar experience. Without going into all the details, after my wife began sharing the gospel with family members, I was confronted by my father in-law, and brother in-law.

After some back and forth questions, they continued to ask, "How come all babies go to heaven?" I wasn't interested in discussing the salvation of elect infants, so I tried to keep to the topic at hand, namely, the need for the gospel to be proclaimed to the lost.

However they continued to drive the idea, that, "Since all babies go to heaven, and babies can't understand the gospel, they don't have to do anything."

This immediately turned into, "Since babies and children don't need the gospel, neither do native Americans who never heard the gospel".

Eventually it devolved into, "No one has to hear or believe anything. What you believe has nothing to do with salvation."

I took them to Romans 10:14, to no avail. They had latched on to this idea, that neither they, nor anyone else, had any responsibility for sin (definitely not imputed sin), and no obligation to repent or believe. Most all of this line of thought came from the explicit examples they gave of infants, literal blind/deaf men, and indigenous peoples, being spared for their innocence.

From the very beginning of the confrontation, they handed me their Bible to read from (their idea and they insisted). By the end, they were telling me it was just the word of man, and had been corrupted.

Fast forward a few weeks, and I had been essentially been labeled as the antichrist. They cut me off completely, and began telling people they think I'm abusing my wife, that I brainwashed her. We have no contact with them. I still pray for them.

I struggled with the words exchanged, and the events after for a good while. Wondered if I had foolishly offended them without cause, if i represented the teaching of the Lord accurately, if I had grieved my brother, etc.

Today however, I don't think I was unnecessarily offensive, or unbiblical in my presentation. I am convinced that what transpired that night was the working out of 2 Corinthians 2:15-16. I was the savour of death unto death for them, in that instance.

Talk to your wife about every conversation. Think about how you both plan to interact with them. Do not give them an occasion to drive a wedge in between you. I don't know your exact situation, but seek the Lord's guidance, and be meek, yet solemn and steadfast.
Click to expand...
Babies go to Heaven if anything cause of God's mercy John 1:12-13, as we see also in Jesus words in Matthew 19:14; Luke 18:16; Mark 10:14.
 
ReformedChristian said:
Babies go to Heaven if anything cause of God's mercy John 1:12-13, as we see also in Jesus words in Matthew 19:14; Luke 18:16; Mark 10:14.
Click to expand...
I know God is merciful, just as you do. The argument was that God must save them, and that since he must save them, x y and z follow. But their must was grounded in their own human emotion, not God's word.

They ground their case for God being obligated to save babies based on the circumstance, namely, that babies are innocent, and can't express faith. They then extend this to all mankind.
 
Last edited:
How much of a Reformed consensus is there that God saves all babies, or all covenant babies of at least one believing parent, who die in infancy? This is something for which I've never understood the biblical warrant, and I've never had a problem believing that a just and loving God could send deceased infants to damnation. I guess I have tended to implicitly lean towards what Augustine said on the topic.
 
LittleFaith said:
How much of a Reformed consensus is there that God saves all babies, or all covenant babies of at least one believing parent, who die in infancy? This is something for which I've never understood the biblical warrant, and I've never had a problem believing that a just and loving God could send deceased infants to damnation. I guess I have tended to implicitly lean towards what Augustine said on the topic.
Click to expand...

From Gary North's Crossed Fingers:

The 1903 revision announced the universal salvation of infants. This compromised the Confession's teaching on elect infants. It was intended to; the whole denomination had abandoned the Confession's implication that there are non-elect infants...

There is progress in history. This includes creedal progress. This is why Presbyterians affirmed that the Westminster Confession was superior to previous confessional statements. But belief in general is not the same as action in the present. The Old School did not seek Confessional revisions in a denomination dominated by New School members. The Old School therefore found itself in a dilemma: some of its beliefs had changed. The Confession says that only elect infants go to heaven (X:3). Old School theologians by the late nineteenth century believed that all infants are elect. This discrepancy between the strict language of the Confession and actual belief was used by modernists against the Old School and against the judicially binding authority of the Confession...

The Confession teaches that elect infants go to heaven: Chapter X, Effectual Calling (Sec. 3). The Assembly believed that the infants born to non-Christians are damned from birth unless specially regenerated. If they die as infants, they perish eternally. One commissioner, Anthony Burgess, had written a book in which he stated that "many thousand thousands of pagan-infants are damned. . . ." The third committee reporting to the Assembly had originally selected the phrase "elect of infants," not "elect infants. " Briggs reprinted lengthy passages from the Westminster Assembly's commissioners to prove that they believed this doctrine (pp. 122-32).

Why bother? Because Briggs had spotted a weakness in the Princetonians' position, from Archibald Alexander to his own day. The Princetonians had succumbed to popular opinion: all infants go to heaven. Therefore, to make this opinion fit the Confession, they had to conclude that all infants are elect...

Briggs had a method to his madness. The Confession also includes in the "elect infant" category "all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" (X:3).This seems a covenantally reasonable conclusion from the "elect infants" premise: the God of grace in history makes certain allowances. His grace is, after all, free grace. But these unique and specified exceptions were vital to Briggs' theory of final judgment. He wanted to include virtually everyone else in history and beyond history. Many pages later, he got to the point: "If the divine grace may be applied to the millions of infants dying daily, why not millions of adult heathen?" He left it as a question, but he added that it "must be answered before there can be any comfort or stability in modern theology."
Click to expand...
 
MyCrows said:
I mentioned that I would share a little bit of my similar experience. Without going into all the details, after my wife began sharing the gospel with family members, I was confronted by my father in-law, and brother in-law.

After some back and forth questions, they continued to ask, "How come all babies go to heaven?" I wasn't interested in discussing the salvation of elect infants, so I tried to keep to the topic at hand, namely, the need for the gospel to be proclaimed to the lost.

However they continued to drive the idea, that, "Since all babies go to heaven, and babies can't understand the gospel, they don't have to do anything."

This immediately turned into, "Since babies and children don't need the gospel, neither do native Americans who never heard the gospel".

Eventually it devolved into, "No one has to hear or believe anything. What you believe has nothing to do with salvation."

I took them to Romans 10:14, to no avail. They had latched on to this idea, that neither they, nor anyone else, had any responsibility for sin (definitely not imputed sin), and no obligation to repent or believe. Most all of this line of thought came from the explicit examples they gave of infants, literal blind/deaf men, and indigenous peoples, being spared for their innocence.

From the very beginning of the confrontation, they handed me their Bible to read from (their idea and they insisted). By the end, they were telling me it was just the word of man, and had been corrupted.

Fast forward a few weeks, and I had been essentially been labeled as the antichrist. They cut me off completely, and began telling people they think I'm abusing my wife, that I brainwashed her. We have no contact with them. I still pray for them.

I struggled with the words exchanged, and the events after for a good while. Wondered if I had foolishly offended them without cause, if i represented the teaching of the Lord accurately, if I had grieved my brother, etc.

Today however, I don't think I was unnecessarily offensive, or unbiblical in my presentation. I am convinced that what transpired that night was the working out of 2 Corinthians 2:15-16. I was the savour of death unto death for them, in that instance.

Talk to your wife about every conversation. Think about how you both plan to interact with them. Do not give them an occasion to drive a wedge in between you. I don't know your exact situation, but seek the Lord's guidance, and be meek, yet solemn and steadfast.
Click to expand...
Thank you for being willing to share your experience. Our situation is a bit different as I was deeply against reformed theology when they first met me. I then went down a two year path of almost entirely deconstructing what I had been taught growing up as a wesleyan and ended up where I am today. I think that because of my journey they have since lightened up about reformed theology, at least enough for us to have fairly genuine discussions but unfortunately appeals to emotions or some philosophy train of thought tend to keep us from being rooted in Scripture for the entirety of our talks. I'll quote a scripture and instead of a sincere scriptural rebuttal I'll get "well I just don't believe that, and I never will"
 
Seth The Presbyterian said:
Thank you for being willing to share your experience. Our situation is a bit different as I was deeply against reformed theology when they first met me. I then went down a two year path of almost entirely deconstructing what I had been taught growing up as a wesleyan and ended up where I am today. I think that because of my journey they have since lightened up about reformed theology, at least enough for us to have fairly genuine discussions but unfortunately appeals to emotions or some philosophy train of thought tend to keep us from being rooted in Scripture for the entirety of our talks. I'll quote a scripture and instead of a sincere scriptural rebuttal I'll get "well I just don't believe that, and I never will"
Click to expand...
You’re not alone in these difficulties. My story is almost an exact reflection of yours, Wesleyan and all.
 
What I find somewhat problematic with many views on free will is that it is hard to find what I think is what is in scripture. There appear two things that at first blush seem to be contradictory. The WCF has a chapter (IX) "On Free Will" but if we carefully examine section 3 of that chapter:

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
Click to expand...

And the other thing that seems contradictory is sovereign providence of God. As those that adhere to reformed faith, there are many places this is taught ... so thoroughly I skip those many places here, but I'll just mention WCF V and recommend it to your reading.
The main thing I think ought be carefully thought is that while fallen men cannot do anything "to convert himself, or prepare himself thereunto." Note that what it does not say is that he has no free will. When we look at ourselves, do we see that we have or do not have free will? We still see that we are not forced or coerced ... it isn't like we are dragged kicking and screaming (neither those that are saved, nor the reprobate). What is more, is that providence is still contained in sovereign ordination of all things.
So we have two things: God's sovereign providence and man's free will. Both are absolutely contained in scripture. So how can that possibly be? It is because God sovereignly predestines what we freely of our own will choose, so that before the creation of the earth, God ordained whatsoever comes to pass, and yet so as to not force the creature, but rather to ordain that man freely chooses his actions and decisions perfectly conform to what God himself has ordained. You and I do not have this ability. We cannot create a being that can perfectly choose what we ordained. To have that ability, we would have to be capable of ordering all things. God has that ability; how else could it be said he: "causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28 (NASB95) So that we see that we freely choose what God has ordained.

There are two possible errors from what I can see. One is to deny that God truly fore ordains everything that actually happens; the second that man does not actually have free will. Both positions teach what is contrary to scripture. They both have to be true at the same time, yet from different perspectives. We see in this age that man freely chooses. We know from scripture that God has in fact ordained everything that does happen.

Almost every newly hatched Calvinist knows Romans 9:19 - 21:
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
Click to expand...
And even more know 8:28
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
Click to expand...

This is hardly new, but the concept that foreordination and free will do not in any way conflict boggles the mind for some.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Augustine - the Church is full of good and bad Christians alike
Replies
0
Views
908
Phil D.
P
Abd_Yesua_alMasih
  • Locked
Heretic Burning!!
Replies
21
Views
4K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
Justified
  • Locked
Augustine and Pelagianism
Replies
11
Views
7K
MW
M
Casey
  • Locked
Augustine and the Two-Kingdom Doctrine
Replies
6
Views
4K
SRoper
SRoper
earl40
  • Locked
At the risk of sounding like an arch heretic.
Replies
18
Views
3K
earl40
earl40
Back
Top