In response to my post on the neo-Manicheans, Ben Henshaw attempted to contrive a parallel set of invidious comparisons in relation to Calvinism. But his attempt suffers from both general and specific problems.
The general problem is that he doesn’t know the difference between invidious comparisons and harmless comparisons. If both an orthodox and unorthodox belief-system share something in common, that is not inherently invidious. For the unorthodox belief-system may, in that respect, share something good in common with the orthodox belief-system.
For example, a number of Christian heresies and cults endorse the Protestant canon. But that’s a harmless comparison rather than an invidious comparison. It isn’t bad that Protestants share something good in common with a cult or heresy, or vice versa.
To take another example, what makes Manichean/Zoroastrian dualism bad is not that it’s Manichean or Zoroastrian. Rather, it’s because their dualistic outlook is bad on its own terms that it’s bad for them to endorse that outlook.
And if another belief-system shares something bad in common with Manichaeanism or Zoroastrianism, then that’s what makes the comparison invidious.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time, and I daresay it’s not the last, that we have to explain the obvious to an Arminian epologist.
Beyond the generally fallacy are a number of specific equivocations as well as outright falsehoods in his presentation:
“On account of the fact that they [Calvinists and Manicheans] both teach determinism.”
This gets thrown around quite frequently. I’d like to see Ben spell out precisely what type of determinism was taught in Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, then compare that to the type of determinism taught in Calvinism.
“A single God with a contradictory will who irresistibly causes his creatures to do both good and evil.”
i) He needs to show how the God of Calvinism has a contradictory will. For example, does Paul Helm’s understanding of God involve a contradictory will? Likewise, can he show where my own understanding of God involves a contradictory will?
ii) According to Arminianism, God causes his creatures to do both good and evil by creating a world in which they do both good and evil. Is the Arminian God conflicted?
“Calvinists believe that they alone are the spiritually mature Christians who have gained special insight into the ‘doctrines of grace’ and the secret counsels of God (so secret that no Christian writers prior to Augustine ever heard of them).”
i) Can Ben quote any Reformed creeds or representative Reformed theologians who take the position that Calvinists alone are the spiritually mature Christians? For that matter, can he even quote me to that effect?
ii) Likewise, can he quote any representative Reformed theologians who take the position that it requires “special insight” to find the doctrines of grace in the pages of Scripture? For that matter, can he even quote me to that effect?
iii) Finally, it’s very imprudent for him to discredit Calvinism in case no Christian writers prior to Augustine ever taught it. After all, Catholic and Orthodox apologists level the same basic charge against Evangelicalism in general and the Protestant Reformers in particular. They’d say the same thing about Arminian or Wesleyan theology.
“On account of the fact that they [Calvinism and Hinduism] both maintain a spiritual caste system.”
Once again, let’s see the specifics. What Ben is doing here is to shift the onerous connotations of the Hindu caste system onto Calvinism. But before he can draw that comparison, he first needs to strip away everything that’s distinctive to the Hindu caste-system.
“They provide the tragedy that makes the comedy that much more funny for the elect.”
"Funny"? Here Ben advertises his literary as well as theological illiteracy. For some reason, Arminian epologists can’t resist indulging in glib, facile, superficial caricatures of Calvinism. They think that’s clever. But since the caricature is easy to spot, they end exposing their own shallow, callow grasp of theology. Taking cheap shots makes them look cheap.
Since Ben doesn’t know what he’s talking about, which doesn’t prevent him from talking, here’s a corrective:
“Comedy means two distinct things in literary criticism. One category is the humorous or laughable. But comedy also denotes a type of story pattern. In fact, it is one of the four phases of the monomyth. A full-fledged comic plot is a U-shaped story that descends into potential tragedy and then rises to a happy ending as obstacles to fulfillment are gradually overcome. Some comic plots record only the upward movement from bondage to freedom. The progression of a comic plot is from problem to solution, from less than ideal experience to prosperity and wish fulfillment. The comic plot is the story of the happy ending par excellence. The plot consists of a series of obstacles that must be overcome en route to the happy ending…Several Biblical stories are virtual case studies in comic plots…The truth is that comedy is the dominant narrative form in the Bible…The comic plot is the deep structure of biblical narrative…the overall plot of the Bible is a U-shaped comic plot,” Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 160-61.
The editor illustrates his point by citing the stories of Ruth and Job, the Joseph cycle, the life of Christ, and the book of Revelation.
Continuing with Ben:
“Even though the elect never actually experience the ‘tragedy’ of eternal torment, nor were they ever in any real danger of experiencing it).”
Does Ben think there’s something inherently wrong with shielding people from “real dangers”? Does Ben think that guardrails are immoral?
“All that is left is a theology where God is the only real thinker and actor in the universe, all of His creatures merely being passive conduits through which God’s thoughts and actions are expressed, or ‘instantiated’ (even sinful and contradictory thoughts).”
i) That’s long on assertion and short on argument.
ii) Doesn’t the Arminian God instantiate his preconception of the world–a world containing sinful thoughts? The Arminian God instantiates the world he foresaw, complete with all the sinful thoughts and actions of the finite agents–thereby reifying their sinful thoughts an actions.
Why do Arminians constantly act as if they can evade the moral and metaphysical implications of their own belief-system?
“On account of the fact that Calvinists represent the master race unconditionally (arbitrarily?) favored by God above everyone else from all eternity.”
Since Calvinists don’t belong to any particular race, they hardly view their religious identity in racial terms.
Moreover, Calvinists don’t equate the elect with Calvinists.
Is Ben even trying to be accurate? Or is he so intoxicated by his animosity towards Calvinism that he’s incapable of even giving a sober description. The poor bloke can’t see it straight through his blurry-eyed vision. He needs to spend some quality time in detox to dry out.
"Why to Arminians constantly act as if they can evade the moral and metaphysical implications of their own belief-system?"
ReplyDeleteYou could also substitute the word "Liberals" or "LibProts" for "Arminians" in your sentence above and it would still ring true.
But to hazard a guess to an answer to your question: I think it's because they can... until some clear-thinking, Biblical Calvinist or Christian or Conservative calls them out on their specious reasoning and refutes them.
Hello Steve,
ReplyDeleteRegarding the fact that both Calvinists and Gnostics (the Persian branch being Manichaeism), affirm Platonic Determinism you wrote: “This gets thrown around quite frequently. I’d like to see Ben spell out precisely what type of determinism was taught in Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, then compare that to the type of determinism taught in Calvinism.”
The Platonic variety. The Gnostics combined Platonic philosophy with Christian elements, and this is what initially appealed to Augustine, who was a big fan of platonic philosophy, but wishing to retain some elements of his mother’s Christian religion. Gnosticism was the perfect fit. Augustine wrote extensively in the defense of the Platontic philosophers, and rejected the argument of the Platonic philopher, Apuleius, that Socrates' spirit was a demon (quote available upon request). Augustine even suggested that we should borrow the philosophy of the Platonic philosophers, just as the Israelites took Egyptian gold in the Exodus. [Quotes available upon request]. The Platonic philosophers touched upon dualism, determinism and immutibility. The Stoics were known fatalists.
John Calvin wrote: “Those who want to discredit this doctrine disparage it by comparing it with the Stoic dogma of Fate. The same charge was brought against Augustine. We don’t want to argue about words, but we do not allow the term ‘Fate’, both because it is among those that Paul teaches us to avoid as heathen innovations and also because the obnoxious terms in an attempt to attach stigma to God’s truth.” (The Institutes of Christian Religion, p.74)
Of course, Calvinists do affirm “Theistic Fatalism.” [quote available upon request]
In terms of Platonic determinism and the “problem of evil,” the Gnostic, Florinus (c. 130), concluded the same thing that what one particular Calvinist at CARM concluded [Beloved57 to be specific], is that God is in fact, “the author of sin.” Again, that’s a Gnostic concept (another example is forthcoming), and of course, was immediately rejected by Irenaeus (130-200) in his work entitled, “God, not the author of sin,” and Irenaeus appealed to one of James White’s “big three”: Matthew 23:37.
Consider another Gnostic, Valentinus (c.100 - c.160): “Valentinus was among the early Christians who attempted to align Christianity with Platonism, drawing dualist conceptions from the Platonic world of ideal forms (pleroma) and the lower world of phenomena (kenoma). Of the mid-2nd century thinkers and preachers who were declared heretical by Irenaeus and later mainstream Christians, only Marcion is as outstanding as a personality. The contemporary orthodox counter to Valentinus was Justin Martyr.” (Wikipedia)
The early church taught free will (a plethora of quotes are available upon request). In fact, Augustine, after defecting from a decade spent in Gnostic Manichaeism, taught free will (quotes available upon request), only later to “discover” a hearty determinism in Scripture.
This is why I believe that Augustine was just more successful than his Gnostic counterparts, in bringing Platonic philosophy under the pale of Christian orthodoxy.
Also, in terms of a comparison of a Hindu caste system, the Gnostic Manichaeans did indeed haev a system of separation of groups into "elect, hearers, and sinners."
Wikipedia article: "Some modern scholars have suggested that Manichaean ways of thinking influenced the development of some of Augustine's ideas."
You think?
Hey Richard. That's all very interesting, but it's hard to see how the comparison is actually invidious. If Christian determinism resembles Platonic determinism, then that merely indicates that Platonism shares something favorable in common with Christianity. And if it took the influence of Platonism to dispel the pagan concept of libertarian free will, which until then had unfortunately pervaded Christian theology, so much the better.
ReplyDeleteThat said, it's difficult to believe that Platonic determinism really has that much in common with theistic determinism. The former is a kind of causal determinism (unless I'm much mistaken?)—specifically entailing inevitable material causation. The latter entails no such thing; possibly even denying inevitable material causation. Theistic determinism predicates the determination of events on some prior action of God, and isn't tied to any causal theory that I'm aware of. Platonic determinism predicates the determination of events on prior natural events following natural laws. Am I wrong?
Hello Dominic,
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that Platonic determinism was predicated on natural laws alone. The Platonists believed the Divine to be Immutable, from which determinism is derived. I can discuss that in more detail later. However, the pagans argued for and against free will and determinism. For instance, Cicero famously argued against Stoic determinism. I have a hard time attaching the "pagan" lable to free will only, and not determinism. I also bristle at the thought of thanking the Gnostics for correcting errant Church views. Why do you call free will "pagan," and not "determinism", when both concepts were argued by the pagans? Surely you do not contend that they never argued for a divine determinism?
BTW, does Coords have anything beyond Wikipedia articles to document his claims?
ReplyDeleteThe Platonists believed the Divine to be Immutable, from which determinism is derived.
ReplyDeleteWell, assuming that one can reason from immutable divinity to determinism, there's nothing invidious about this comparison. Christianity certainly holds that God is immutable.
I have a hard time attaching the "pagan" lable to free will only, and not determinism
I never suggested that determinism doesn't have any attachment to pagan theologies or philosophies. But if both free will and determinism appear in paganism, then trying to discredit Calvinism on the basis of a mere comparison to Platonism is going to backfire. One need merely draw a parallel comparison between Arminianism and some other pagan religion which held to libertarian free will. The question isn't whether a comparison can be drawn. The question is whether the doctrine, or the implications of the doctrine, are patently unbiblical; such that the comparison moves from being benign to being invidious. There's nothing patently unbiblical about determinism. But if Arminianism can be reasonably compared to a dualistic pagan religion, as Steve argued, that certainly is unbiblical.
I also bristle at the thought of thanking the Gnostics for correcting errant Church views.
Why? Do you also bristle at the thought of John appropriating the concept of the logos from those filthy Greek philosophers? Do you bristle at the thought of unbelieving scientists, or Catholic scientists, correcting errant church views—say on geocentricism? Catholics don't seem any better or worse than Gnostics, to me. Do you bristle at the thought of secular epistemologists critiquing Christian philosophy, exposing errors in it, and ultimately improving it? That's an extremely strange attitude. You seem to be resentful that God has chosen secular means as well as Christian ones to sanctify his church. That's the attitude of an ingrate.
Hello Dominic,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: “But if both free will and determinism appear in paganism, then trying to discredit Calvinism on the basis of a mere comparison to Platonism is going to backfire. One need merely draw a parallel comparison between Arminianism and some other pagan religion which held to libertarian free will.”
Fair enough. I do not reject the great flood, nor the Trinity, simply on account of the pagans having a similar teaching, and I certainly agree with you that the final matter is resolved in the authority of the Scriptures.
You wrote: “But if Arminianism can be reasonably compared to a dualistic pagan religion, as Steve argued, that certainly is unbiblical.”
However, as was shown, dualism is something that, while I have seen logically and legitimately attributed to deterministic Gnosticism & Platonianism, for the reasons that the article specified), I’ve never seen it “reasonably compared” attributed Arminianism at all, and that’s why Steve was rightly pressed for a legitimate source, which he is yet to provide.
You wrote: “Do you bristle at the thought of unbelieving scientists, or Catholic scientists, correcting errant church views—say on geocentricism? Catholics don't seem any better or worse than Gnostics, to me. Do you bristle at the thought of secular epistemologists critiquing Christian philosophy, exposing errors in it, and ultimately improving it? That's an extremely strange attitude. You seem to be resentful that God has chosen secular means as well as Christian ones to sanctify his church. That's the attitude of an ingrate.”
Am I ungrateful to Satan, for providing us with the Gnostics to correct our understanding on determinism, free will and foreknowledge? Geocentricism has its own complex political issues. But are we next going to thank the Evolutionists for correcting our errant iews on a literal 7 day Genesis creation?
However, as was shown, dualism is something that, while I have seen logically and legitimately attributed to deterministic Gnosticism & Platonianism
ReplyDeleteBut does determinism actually entail dualism—or is the fact that some pagan philosophies take a dualistic view just incidental? The fact that Calvinism shares some kind of determinism with Platonism does nothing to suggest that Calvinism shares dualism with Platonism.
I’ve never seen it “reasonably compared” attributed Arminianism at all
Well, I think Steve's original article actually demonstrated a reasonable connection. Not a historical connection, but a conceptual one. Conceptually speaking, Arminians share a lot in common with dualists. They take an approach which, if pushed, cashes out dualistically. Steve's vocal critics seem either unable or unwilling to see and interact with this basic point, and are instead focusing on some imagined historical connection; trying to refute a comparison he never made.
Am I ungrateful to Satan, for providing us with the Gnostics to correct our understanding on determinism, free will and foreknowledge?
Who said anything about Satan? That sounds dualistic in itself. Do you think that God had nothing to do with the existence of the Gnostics? That he is not directing the development of his church, using means both internal and external to it?
Richard Coords said...
ReplyDelete"Also, in terms of a comparison of a Hindu caste system, the Gnostic Manichaeans did indeed haev a system of separation of groups into 'elect, hearers, and sinners'."
Those are just linguistic ciphers. You need to specify their content, and compare that with the specific content of their linguistic counterparts in Calvinism.
For example, both Catholicism and Calvinism use the word "justification," but that hardly denotes the same or even a relevantly similar doctrine of justification. Indeed, the two are fundamentally opposed.
Hello Dominic:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: “The fact that Calvinism shares some kind of determinism with Platonism does nothing to suggest that Calvinism shares dualism with Platonism.”
Understood, and I don’t think that in this post, I accused Calvinism of teaching dualism. Nevertheless, we do agree that Calvinism teaches Gnostic determinism. Correct?
You wrote: “Well, I think Steve's original article actually demonstrated a reasonable connection. Not a historical connection….”
I understand that “you feel” that there is a conceptual, dualistic connection to Arminianism, but my point is that I would like to thank you for at least confirming that no “historical connection” can be made, in which Arminianism has ever, in 2,000 years of church history, ever been linked to dualism. Steve was just making the whole thing up as he went along.
You wrote: “Who said anything about Satan? That sounds dualistic in itself. Do you think that God had nothing to do with the existence of the Gnostics? That he is not directing the development of his church, using means both internal and external to it?”
To explain, did Eliphaz preach true doctrine to Job? Of course not. God said so Himself. The fact is that Eliphaz was armed by a demon. (Job 4:12-24) In fact, Paul referenced the “doctrine of demons.” Justin Martyr had claimed that he could trace the origin of Gnosticism (though it is unclear as to what aspect of Gnosticism, if not all of it), that he could trace it back to a single demonic source. So to your question, yes, I believe that God can use error, such as the Gnostics, in order to achieve good. For instance, God can use the error of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in order to sharpen our understanding of doctrinal truth, but not that JW theology is truth. I believe that the Gnostic errors could have had the effect of sharpening Christian theology, sure. But I do not believe that Gnostic determinism was something that corrected theology, but instead something that polluted theology, and exists today in the form of Calvinism. If you feel that this is dualistic in nature, then you are free to your opinion, as is Steve.
Steve, I was just indicating a general "caste system" type comparison. If you wish to press for my to define the Manichee meaning of the elect, hearers and sinners, I'll withdraw the claim. While I do not deny that there is an interesting comparison of Calvinism to the Hindu caste system, for now I'm satisfied enough that there appears to be a general agreement that Calvinism indeed affirms Gnostic Determinism.
ReplyDeleteUnderstood, and I don’t think that in this post, I accused Calvinism of teaching dualism. Nevertheless, we do agree that Calvinism teaches Gnostic determinism. Correct?
ReplyDeleteWell, no. You haven't really given any conclusive evidence for that claim.
I would like to thank you for at least confirming that no “historical connection” can be made, in which Arminianism has ever, in 2,000 years of church history, ever been linked to dualism. Steve was just making the whole thing up as he went along.
I'm intrigued by your implication that Arminianism is 2000 years old. Needless to say, though, that even if Steve is the first to argue that Arminianism cashes out in a tacitly dualistic way, that doesn't make him wrong.
But I do not believe that Gnostic determinism was something that corrected theology, but instead something that polluted theology, and exists today in the form of Calvinism.
Since there's no practical difference between Calvinistic determinism and Arminian determinism, regardless of the causal theories at work in either theology, I take it that you believe this polluting, Gnostic determinism exists today in the form of Arminianism as well?
Hello Dominic,
ReplyDeleteWhen I mentioned Arminianism within 2,000 years of church history, obviously I'm speaking of Arminian type theology. We both known what time period in which Arminius actually lived. But getting down to the issues, #1, yes I cannot imagine how you might distinguish Gnostic determinism from Calvinistic determinism. Realize that the Gnostic, Florinus (180) affirmed that God was the author of sin, which drew a quick refutation by Irenaeus (130-200), in his work, "God, not the author of sin." I'm really not sure how you have any wiggle room to distance Calvinistic determinism from Gnostic determinism. As for Arminianism purportedly teaching determinism, I read your link and there is simply no merit to the argument. Arminianism rejects an immutable decree, rejects Compatibilism. Arminianism teaches as concept known as the "power of contrary choice," which implies a sense of self-determinism, though aided by grace. So there is just no merit to the argument that Arminianism teaches a form of determinism which exclused any sense of libertarian free will. Returning to the main point, I'm anxious to see how you might be able to find a way in which Calvinistic determinism might in some way, have a distinguishing feature from Gnostic determinism.
Hi Richard. What do Florinus and Irenaeus mean by the phrase "author of sin"? It's highly ambiguous and emotive. A modern Calvinist is by no means committed to affirming, or for that matter denying, that God is the "author of sin"—at least not until the term is defined explicitly.
ReplyDeleteI'm really not sure how you have any wiggle room to distance Calvinistic determinism from Gnostic determinism.
Maybe if you could define Gnostic determinism, the amount of wiggle room would become clear.
So there is just no merit to the argument that Arminianism teaches a form of determinism which exclused any sense of libertarian free will.
So you're denying that, under Arminianism, for an agent (S) choosing whether to act (A) at time t, the outcome A or ¬A is actualized inevitably because of a prior action on the part of God? You're affirming, in other words, that whether A or ¬A obtains was indeterminate to God when he created the world?
I'm anxious to see how you might be able to find a way in which Calvinistic determinism might in some way, have a distinguishing feature from Gnostic determinism.
If you're that anxious, then define Gnostic determinism so that we can see what sort of difference, if any, there actually is.
When I say “Gnostic determinism,” I must clarify that Gnosticism is broad. Manichaean Gnosticism, which Augustine initially held, is confirmed to have rejected free will, within the Neo-Platonic concept of an Immutable God. Florinus, a Valentinian Gnostic, likewise rejected free will, and composed the work which affirmed that God is the author of sin, and which we know was rejected by Irenaeus’ aforementioned work, “God, not the author of sin,” in which Irenaeus stated the follwing: “This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God...And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice...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?” (Against Heresies XXXVII)
ReplyDeleteDoes Irenaeus’ response to Florinus, agree and disagree with your determinism? Neither Irenaeus’ nor Florinus’ work survived. Nevertheless, from what we do have, I believe that we are seeing the ancestral origin for the determinism taught today by Calvinists. It appears that Augustinian Predestination is the rediscovery of his Neo-Platonic, Manichaean roots.
Assuming that the Molinistic approach, which you’ve laid out as the “Arminian” model (which is debateable since it’s actually a minority held view among Arminians), unlike the Stoic method, Arminian “foreknowledge” is non-causative, and thus, the world which God eternally surveys and actualizes is the one in which God foresees individuals making unnecessitated, self-determined choices (with the power of contrary choice), and thus excludes Hard Determinism, and actually excludes Soft Determinism (Compatibilism) as well, since, as I contend elsewhere, there is no difference whatsoever between Hard and Soft Determinism. They are identical. When you examine how Soft Determinism works, it inevitably fails to distinguish itself from Hard Determinism.
Does Irenaeus’ response to Florinus, agree and disagree with your determinism?
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Irenaeus' view on Matthew 23:37—in fact, it strikes me as rather jejune. What's unclear to me is whether it really comports with an Arminian view either, though.
Nevertheless, from what we do have, I believe that we are seeing the ancestral origin for the determinism taught today by Calvinists.
Well, in the absence of any kind of solid definition for Gnostic determinism, that appears to be nothing but speculation on your part. Moreover, since you say the Gnostics denied free will, it's not even very compelling speculation—you know, in light of the way that Calvinists don't deny free will.
Assuming that the Molinistic approach, which you’ve laid out as the “Arminian” model (which is debateable since it’s actually a minority held view among Arminians)
You're confused. I merely couched both the Arminian and Calvinistic views in terms of possible worlds. The fact that I used those semantics doesn't mean I was talking about Molinism.
Arminian “foreknowledge” is non-causative, and thus, the world which God eternally surveys and actualizes is the one in which God foresees individuals making unnecessitated, self-determined choices (with the power of contrary choice)
And what grounds God's foreknowledge?
Richard Coords,
ReplyDeleteYour claims need more documentation. You give us a page number for a quote from John Calvin, but you don't tell us which edition of his Institutes you're quoting, so how would a page number help us find the passage? You cite Wikipedia, which is problematic in itself, without specifying which Wikipedia articles you're citing. Your citation of Irenaeus in your last post is incorrect. The same incorrect citation ("Against Heresies XXXVII") is found at many Arminian or other web sites that address free will. Apparently, none of them looked up the passage before commenting on it. Irenaeus' treatise Against Heresies is divided into five books, so a reference like "Against Heresies XXXVII" makes no sense.
The passage is found in chapter 37 of the fourth book of Against Heresies. Here's what Irenaeus goes on to say, in the same passage, about his opponents:
"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, who are incapable of being anything else except just what they had been created.”"
That doesn't sound like Calvinism to me.
You keep referring to a work of Irenaeus that's no longer extant. But you quoted a work that is extant, his treatise Against Heresies. You refer to Florinus, but the passage you quoted from Irenaeus isn't a response to him.
You refer to the Gnostics in general, not just Florinus, and you suggest that the beliefs in question predate Florinus. Yet, in the fragment of Irenaeus' letter to Florinus that Eusebius has preserved for us, Irenaeus comments that "These doctrines, not even the heretics outside of the Church, have ever dared to publish." (Church History, 5:20) Whatever Irenaeus is criticizing, he doesn't seem to have associated it with Gnosticism in general in the manner you have.
And I don't know why you'd begin with Gnosticism. Christian theology predates the New Testament era. What about Jewish interpretations of the Old Testament, and in particular Jewish views of free will and related subjects, prior to the rise of Gnosticism?
As Steve and Dominic have said, you need better documentation for your claims, and you need to go into more detail about what the relevant historical sources believed. There was widespread belief in some concept of free will in patristic Christianity, but you would need to define your terms more specifically and address a wider variety of sources in order to establish the conclusions you want us to reach.
Hello Jason,
ReplyDeleteThank you for providing the specific chapter to the quote.
You wrote: “Whatever Irenaeus is criticizing, he doesn't seem to have associated it with Gnosticism in general in the manner you have.”
I think that you are mistaken:
The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes: “Moreover, we condemn Florinus and Blastus (against whom also Irenæus wrote), and all those who make God the author of sin…” (Appendix: The Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter VIII.—OF Man’s Fall; Sin, and the Cause of Sin)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.v.ix.html
What do you think?
Hello Dominic,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: “Well, in the absence of any kind of solid definition for Gnostic determinism, that appears to be nothing but speculation on your part.”
I cannot find one single distinguishing feature of Calvinistic and Gnostic determinism.
You wrote: “You’re confused. I merely couched both the Arminian and Calvinistic views in terms of possible worlds. The fact that I used those semantics doesn't mean I was talking about Molinism.”
Ok, you reject that I inferred that it sounded like the Molinist perspective.
You wrote: “And what grounds God’s foreknowledge?”
Regardless, you cannot apply a non-Arminian perspective on foreknowledge, in order to prove that Arminianism teaches determinism.
Richard,
ReplyDeleteSolid points.
Just a few quick comments as I don’t have time for a long response, nor do I have time for a series of back and forth arguments.
ReplyDeleteMy post in the combox of Steve’s second post suggesting that Arminians were Neo-Manicheans, and that Billy’s response was benign, was supposed to be more funny than anything. Quite frankly, I found Steve’s initial post to be funny, and so I was responding in kind. However, I do think that some of the “logical connections” I drew are just as valid as any Steve drew in his initial post, despite Steve’s protests. Let me just address a few things. Since I will not be addressing everything, if I do not address something that any honest seeker finds compelling concerning Steve’s points here, he or she can raise those questions at my blog
and I will be happy to address them there when I get the chance (I will not be posting further here).
To take another example, what makes Manichean/Zoroastrian dualism bad is not that it’s Manichean or Zoroastrian. Rather, it’s because their dualistic outlook is bad on its own terms that it’s bad for them to endorse that outlook.
And if another belief-system shares something bad in common with Manichaeanism or Zoroastrianism, then that’s what makes the comparison invidious.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time, and I daresay it’s not the last, that we have to explain the obvious to an Arminian epologist.
But Steve never explains why it is bad that in Arminianism, God does not cause evil. He assumes it, but does not explain it. Yes, there is evil in the world that God did not cause and does not take pleasure in (why should that be considered a bad thing?), but that evil is not caused by an opposing deity, so the comparison to Manichaeism falls flat. End of story. Any straining to draw a parallel is no less inappropriate than any of the parallels I drew in my parody response.
And I can just as well state that it is bad that Calvinism shares in common with Manichaeism the doctrine of exhaustive determinism, since in both cases God is caused to be the author of all sin and evil (which I think is a bad thing, but maybe Steve would just say that it isn’t a bad thing to him).
Continued below,
Continued from above,
ReplyDeleteThis gets thrown around quite frequently. I’d like to see Ben spell out precisely what type of determinism was taught in Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, then compare that to the type of determinism taught in Calvinism.
Why should I need to do this when Steve is not willing to explain the differences between dualism in Mane’s theology and what he imagines to be dualism in Arminianism? At the very least he must admit that it is a different “type” of dualism, so his comparison falls flat by his own standards.
“A single God with a contradictory will who irresistibly causes his creatures to do both good and evil.”
i) He needs to show how the God of Calvinism has a contradictory will. For example, does Paul Helm’s understanding of God involve a contradictory will? Likewise, can he show where my own understanding of God involves a contradictory will?
Again, why should I need to show this? Why can’t I just assert it like Steve asserts so many things concerning the “logical connections” between Manichaeism and Arminianism, with no documentation? Why can’t I just assert it like Steve asserts that, “All the various religions and philosophies past and present are variants on three basic worldviews: Calvinism, atheism, and Manichaeism” with no documentation? (BTW, I find it ironic that so many Calvinists on this thread are complaining about documentation when Steve continually evaded the need to show documentation when challenged in the combox of his initial thread, though he did eventually mention some books he read on the subject of different Gnostic views, hardly the type of documentation one would expect to back up such assertions).
Still, Piper, a leading Calvinist apologist and scholar, advocates the two wills view. More than that I explained why the contradictory wills view is a necessary implication in my comments with regards to panentheism.
Continued below,
Continued from above,
ReplyDeleteii) Likewise, can he quote any representative Reformed theologians who take the position that it requires “special insight” to find the doctrines of grace in the pages of Scripture? For that matter, can he even quote me to that effect?
No need to, since Calvinists believe that any such insights are given by God alone unconditionally and irresistibly. Otherwise, Calvinists might boast in the fact that they were smart enough to discover these doctrines on their own, while others were not. So according to Calvinist theology in general, it certainly requires special insight to discover the “doctrines of grace”, insight given only to some by God and denied to a great many silly Arminians and non-Calvinist believers (i.e. these are “logical connections” that apparently, according to Steve, do not require documentation).
Furthermore, even Calvinists generally admit that all Christians start out with an Arminian view point until they are privileged enough to discover (by way of irresistible divine illumination) the “doctrines of grace”. Here is a quote from Calvin to that effect,
“Two people may hear the same teaching together; yet one is willing to learn, and the other persists in his obstinacy. They do not differ in nature, but God illumines one and not the other.” (Acts: Calvin, Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.229, emphasis mine)
“On account of the fact that they [Calvinism and Hinduism] both maintain a spiritual caste system.”
Once again, let’s see the specifics. What Ben is doing here is to shift the onerous connotations of the Hindu caste system onto Calvinism. But before he can draw that comparison, he first needs to strip away everything that’s distinctive to the Hindu caste-system.
Not sure that is accurate, but even if it was I could just respond as Steve did in the combox of his initial post when challenged in a similar manner, “Moreover, two different belief systems can be similar in some respects and dissimilar in others. Isn’t that obvious?” Or, we could just say, “What Steve is doing here is to shift the onerous connotations of Manichean dualism onto Arminianism. But before he can draw that comparison, he first needs to strip away everything that’s distinctive to Manichean dualism.” (and everything that is distinctive to Arminianism as well)
Oh, and as far as some other similarities between Calvinism and Hinduism (though they may be “dissimilar” in other ways), Bob, in the combox of the initial post astutely observes,
“For example, I could suggest that since Steve has suggested that God sources all things, suggesting that "evil" is ultimately "good", then we could correlated his view to Hinduism, which proposes that the Brahman is the final source of all that exists.”
There, now we have two good reasons to call Calvinism Neo-Hinduism.
Continued below,
Continued from above,
ReplyDelete“They provide the tragedy that makes the comedy that much more funny for the elect.”
"Funny"? Here Ben advertises his literary as well as theological illiteracy. For some reason, Arminian epologists can’t resist indulging in glib, facile, superficial caricatures of Calvinism. They think that’s clever.
About as clever as trying to paint Arminianism as Neo-Manichaeism. Yes, I do know the difference between literary forms of comedy. I thought it was obvious that I was being less than serious here, though I was actually using the word as a combination of both forms (i.e. the reprobate’s plight contributes to the happiness of the happy ending for the elect). However, the point still stands regardless of which view of comedy we take.
But since the caricature is easy to spot, they end exposing their own shallow, callow grasp of theology. Taking cheap shots makes them look cheap.
Good point, like the cheap shot/caricature of trying to paint Arminianism as Neo-Manichaeism.
Does Ben think there’s something inherently wrong with shielding people from “real dangers”? Does Ben think that guardrails are immoral?
Which misses the point entirely since there never was any “real danger” to be shielded from, since they were chosen only for salvation from before the creation of the universe, remember? How then were they ever in any “real danger” of damnation? Quite the red-herring here.
Continued below,
“All that is left is a theology where God is the only real thinker and actor in the universe, all of His creatures merely being passive conduits through which God’s thoughts and actions are expressed, or ‘instantiated’ (even sinful and contradictory thoughts).”
ReplyDeletei) That’s long on assertion and short on argument.
No more so than Steve’s initial post comparing Arminianism to dualistic Gnosticism.
Why to [sic.] Arminians constantly act as if they can evade the moral and metaphysical implications of their own belief-system?
Because we find the counter arguments of the Calvinists to be woefully short of compelling. The better question would be: why do Calvinists continue to use such lame counter arguments and expect Arminians to concede to them?
“On account of the fact that Calvinists represent the master race unconditionally (arbitrarily?) favored by God above everyone else from all eternity.”
Since Calvinists don’t belong to any particular race, they hardly view their religious identity in racial terms.
Really, the elect are not a “chosen race” (1 Peter 2:9)? But still, I see Steve’s point. It isn’t exactly the same thing. However, as Steve said, “… two different belief systems can be similar in some respects and dissimilar in others. Isn’t that obvious?”
The same is true here. The elect are a chosen race favored above all else in Calvinism, even if the basis for that favor is different (i.e. not based on skin color, etc.), as Steve points out in his initial post,
“And life in a fallen world is a place in which some of us are also favored to learn what it feels like to be redeemed. Delivered. Forgiven.” (but most are not uncomditionally favored in such a way)
Moreover, Calvinists don’t equate the elect with Calvinists.
I think some do, but regardless, Calvinists do see themselves as the unconditionally elect of God, favored above all else from all eternity. Since only Calvinists believe that (at least in the Christian tradition, since Gnostics also believed this), it is not inaccurate to say, “On account of the fact that Calvinists represent the master race unconditionally (arbitrarily?) favored by God above everyone else from all eternity.”
Is Ben even trying to be accurate? Or is he so intoxicated by his animosity towards Calvinism that he’s incapable of even giving a sober description. The poor bloke can’t see it straight through his blurry-eyed vision. He needs to spend some quality time in detox to dry out.
Again, what I wrote was mostly intended to be lighthearted and less than serious, since I think Steve’s initial post was far more comical than accurate. Still, I don’t think any of my comparisons were any less accurate than Steve’s initial comparison.
At the very least we can say, just as surely as Steve said, that Calvinism “banks in the direction” of Hinduism, Gnosticism, Racism, etc. As Steve said in another post, his trying to take issue with my comparisons, in contrast to his own, could be characterized as trying to make a “distinction without a difference.”
Or, it simply serves the function of demonstrating how silly Steve’s initial comparison was. If Steve were really concerned with accuracy, then he would have never written the post that led to my parody comment.
Maybe Steve needs to detox and clear his head enough to realize that his initial argument was extremely weak and should be discarded rather than defended. [O.K., so those few comments weren’t as quick as I anticipated]
God Bless,
Ben
Richard—
ReplyDeleteI cannot find one single distinguishing feature of Calvinistic and Gnostic determinism.
Given the lack of definition for the latter, you presumably cannot find one single similarity either.
Regardless, you cannot apply a non-Arminian perspective on foreknowledge, in order to prove that Arminianism teaches determinism.
Where did I apply a non-Arminian view, though? I didn't discuss the grounding for God's foreknowledge. I merely noted that Arminianism holds to perfect definite foreknowledge, and that this mere fact subsequently commits it to determinism. If you disagree, then by all means demonstrate the flaw in my reasoning—but do it in the comment thread of my post, rather than sidetracking this discussion.
it is not inaccurate to say, “On account of the fact that Calvinists represent the master race unconditionally (arbitrarily?) favored by God above everyone else from all eternity.”
ReplyDeleteWell, of course it is Ben. It's thoroughly inaccurate. It reminds me of the "author of sin" moniker. Why is it that Arminians seem compulsively unable to describe the opposing position using neutral, accurately denotative language; rather than emotive, connotative language? "Master race"? I mean, seriously? We're implicitly like Nazis, thinking that we're intrinsically better than everyone else for nonsensical reasons?
Does that sound like Calvinism?
Hello Dominic,
ReplyDelete“Given the lack of definition for the latter, you presumably cannot find one single similarity either.”
We are going round and round on this point, but I think that I have shown that the early Church indeed rejected the kind of Gnostic determinism which held that God was the author of sin. Maybe this is a “poison-the-well” tactic, or maybe there really is poison in the Calvinist well. I would be very uncomfortable knowing that my theology had a Gnostic heritage.
You wrote: “I merely noted that Arminianism holds to perfect definite foreknowledge, and that this mere fact subsequently commits it to determinism. If you disagree, then by all means demonstrate the flaw in my reasoning—but do it in the comment thread of my post, rather than sidetracking this discussion.”
Does it make a difference whether I find a flaw in your logic concerning foreknowledge? The bottom line is that Arminianism rejects the notion that “perfect foreknowledge” necessarily implies determinism, and thus your conclusion that Arminianism teaches determinism is unwarranted.
the early Church indeed rejected the kind of Gnostic determinism which held that God was the author of sin.
ReplyDeleteSince the term "author of sin" has not been defined any more than the term "Gnostic determinism", that's a meaningless statement for the purposes of this discussion.
I would be very uncomfortable knowing that my theology had a Gnostic heritage.
Even if I felt similarly, you've so far only managed to speculate about such a heritage. No actual link has been demonstrated.
Does it make a difference whether I find a flaw in your logic concerning foreknowledge? The bottom line is that Arminianism rejects the notion that “perfect foreknowledge” necessarily implies determinism, and thus your conclusion that Arminianism teaches determinism is unwarranted.
Where did I say that Arminianism teaches determinism? I said that Arminianism logically entails determinism—so whether it teaches it or not is irrelevant. If, in fact, Arminianism rejects the notion that perfect foreknowledge necessarily implies determinism, when indeed perfect foreknowledge does necessarily imply determinism as I've shown, then so much the worse for it as a system. A theology which contradicts itself is not a true theology.
Hello Dominic,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Even if I felt similarly, you've so far only managed to speculate about such a heritage. No actual link has been demonstrated."
It's not as if there's a million different forms of "theistic determinism." Based upon the context in which Irenaeus rejected Florinus, I see no basis to allege a dissimilarity from Calvinistic determinism from Gnostic determinism. In terms of foreknowledge, we agree that Arminianism does not teach any form of determinism. You may suggest that it entails it, by apply a C perspective of foreknowledge, but the point remains that A does not teach or affirm any form of determinism, and thus I can say that A shares no heritage with Gnosticism.
Richard Coords said:
ReplyDelete"I think that you are mistaken: The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes: 'Moreover, we condemn Florinus and Blastus (against whom also Irenæus wrote), and all those who make God the author of sin…' (Appendix: The Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter VIII.—OF Man’s Fall; Sin, and the Cause of Sin)"
What's the relevance of that citation of the Second Helvetic Confession? That confession is far removed from the historical context we were discussing. And I don't deny that Irenaeus wrote against Florinus and opposed a concept of God as the author of sin. But, as Steve and Dominic mentioned above, God can be thought of as the author of sin in more ways than one. You haven't documented how the term was being defined in the relevant context, you haven't interacted with the other passages I cited from Irenaeus, and you haven't interacted with the other points I made.
Hello Jason,
ReplyDeleteThe relevance of the citation from the appendix is that it confirmed that Irenaeus specifically criticized the Gnostics (Florinus and Blastus) regarding their concept that God is "the author of sin."
You said: "Whatever Irenaeus is criticizing, he doesn't seem to have associated it with Gnosticism in general in the manner you have."
See above.
Richard Coords wrote:
ReplyDelete"The relevance of the citation from the appendix is that it confirmed that Irenaeus specifically criticized the Gnostics (Florinus and Blastus) regarding their concept that God is 'the author of sin.'"
But there were far more Gnostics than those two men, and whether the concept of authorship of sin is relevant depends on how it's being defined. You haven't demonstrated how the term was being defined in this historical context. And I've cited Irenaeus' comments on the uniqueness of Florinus' beliefs. You could argue that Irenaeus was referring to the uniqueness of other beliefs held by Florinus, not the belief(s) you have in mind, but you'd have to argue for that exemption, not just assume it.
I don't see how adding Blastus to the discussion furthers your argument. Here's what Eusebius writes about the two men:
"Others, of whom Florinus was chief, flourished at Rome. He fell from the presbyterate of the Church, and Blastus was involved in a similar fall. They also drew away many of the Church to their opinion, each striving to introduce his own innovations in respect to the truth....Irenaeus wrote several letters against those who were disturbing the sound ordinance of the Church at Rome. One of them was to Blastus On Schism; another to Florinus On Monarchy, or That God is not the Author of Evil. For Florinus seemed to be defending this opinion." (Church History, 5:15, 5:20)
There are some similarities. Both were active in Rome, for example. But there were differences as well. Eusebius notes that "each [was] striving to introduce his own innovations in respect to the truth", and he differentiates between the subjects Irenaeus addressed when responding to each of them. Regarding the treatise you keep referring to, on the subject of the authorship of sin, Eusebius tells us that "Florinus seemed to be defending this opinion", without including Blastus. I've already cited Irenaeus' comments on the uniqueness of Florinus' beliefs.
I'm not a Calvinist. And I think there's an element of truth to your argument. There was widespread opposition to some aspects of Calvinism in the patristic era. That fact has some significant evidential value. But you would need to do much more to establish the extent of that patristic opposition to Calvinism. Citing a source like Wikipedia isn't enough, and you would have to address more than the church fathers.
An example I often cite when discussing such issues is the perpetual virginity of Mary. The doctrine was widely accepted among the church fathers, especially from the fourth century onward. But the Biblical evidence is against it, and the concept seems to be contradicted by some early post-apostolic sources (Josephus, Hegesippus, etc.), though sometimes not explicitly. If we limited ourselves to explicit statements from the fathers and generalities asserted in sources like Wikipedia, we might come away with the impression that every mainstream Christian of the patristic era, or almost every one, believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Roman Catholics sometimes cite Jerome to the effect that only a small number of heretics denied the doctrine. But a contemporary of Jerome, Basil of Caesarea, commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus "was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495). As far as I know, none of the writings of those men Basil refers to are extant. But Basil tells us that such people did exist. And there's less explicit evidence that the Biblical authors and some earlier post-apostolic Christians held the same view. It would be misleading to limit our evaluation of the subject to explicit statements made by church fathers whose writings are extant. There's more that has to be taken into account.
If you're going to argue that no mainstream Christian believed in some aspect of Calvinism prior to the time of Augustine, you should cite sources who are better qualified than Wikipedia to address such a subject. The same is true with regard to the origin of Augustine's beliefs. It would be better to cite a patristic scholar or historian than to cite a source like Wikipedia. I haven't studied the early history of Calvinist doctrine enough to address these subjects in depth, but I find it doubtful that Augustine's beliefs originated as you've suggested and that no other mainstream Christian held such views earlier. (The fact that Augustine was inconsistent, as you mentioned above, suggests to me that his later beliefs were less related to his pre-Christian life than you've suggested. I think that, overall, his inconsistency works against your view rather than supporting it. And Augustine doesn't seem to have expected his later views to bar him from mainstream Christianity.)
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, Christian theology predates the era of the New Testament. What I mean is that much of what Christians believe is rooted in the Old Testament era. And in that respect, a Calvinist view of an issue like free will or predestination is different than an issue like the perpetual virginity of Mary. We wouldn't expect Jews of the Old Testament era to be commenting on Mary's perpetual virginity. But they did comment on some concepts related to Calvinism. Josephus tells us that the Jewish people held a wide variety of beliefs on such issues, including some that seem at least vaguely similar to Calvinism or what you're attributing to Calvinism. Thus, it's not as though, from a Calvinist perspective, an individual Gnostic like Florinus or the Gnostics in general first corrected a misunderstanding of Biblical theology. Rather, a Calvinist could argue that some extra-Biblical Jews, like those referred to by Josephus, had a correct understanding even earlier.
And the concept of looking for support from extra-Biblical sources, while somewhat significant, isn't as significant as some people make it out to be. It's not as though the Bible is just one document written by one source who only addressed the relevant subject(s) briefly and vaguely on one occasion. Rather, a Calvinist would argue that his beliefs on subjects like predestination and free will are addressed many times in scripture, in many contexts, sometimes explicitly. If he doubts his interpretation of one of the relevant passages in the writings of Moses, he can judge it by other passages in Moses. And passages in the Psalms. And in Proverbs. And in the prophets. And in the gospels. And in Paul. Etc. By the time we get to the church fathers, we've already heard from dozens of Biblical authors and other pre-patristic sources. It's not as though we just have one brief, vague passage in the Bible that nobody commented upon until the patristic era. The Bible and other pre-patristic sources carry more weight than people sometimes suggest as they're attempting to assign too much weight to the patristic sources. Some Protestants do neglect the patristic data, but some of their critics go too far in the opposite direction.
Hello Jason,
ReplyDeleteHave you located any information which suggests that there were other Christians in the early Church period (besides the Manichaean Gnostics), who affirmed determinism, and also affirmed that God was the “author of sin”? In other words, was this a “Christian belief” exclusive to the Gnostic Christians, or did others, perhaps more orthodox, also hold it to?
Augustine claimed in his writings, that he was influenced in his discovery of grace, by fellow Catholic Bishops, Cyprian and Ambrose, but was unable to quote anything substantial from them. Since Ambrose was heavily involved in Neo-Platonic philosophy, and was allegedly known for applying Stoic principles in his sermons, I would have thought that Augustine could have turned up something from him, but no dice.
I still don’t see how you could suggest that Irenaeus might have been referring to “other Gnostic charges,” unrelated to the Gnostic belief that God was the author of sin, when Irenaeus specifically cited Matthew 23:37 in his refutation, which he called the “ancient law of liberty.” It seems clear from his quote that he rejected that God was the author of sin.
By the way, Calvin’s quote that Augustine was charged with teaching “Stoic fatalism” is taken from The Institutes, Book 1, Part 4: God’s Providence, Chapter 16, Section 8. In my book, it’s p.74, Baker, 1986.
Poor Wikipedia sure has taken a beating in this discussion. I understand what you are saying, but the only instances in which I cited Wikipedia was in basic information regarding the dualistic theology of the Gnostic, Valentinus, and also to confirm the widespread speculation that Augustine may have been influenced by his Gnostic roots. There's nothing really earth-shattering there, and I wasn’t really basing my entire argument on Wikipedia.
What I believe contributed to Augustine's views on predestination, not receiving widespread denunciation, was the fact that it rode on the back of the Pelagian controversy, in which Pelagius rejected the necessity of Grace (stemming from a rejection of Augustine's common prayer) and his rejection of Original Sin (which had a significant impact upon the Catholic doctrine on infant baptism). It's not as if Augustine first introduced his views on predestination, as a stand-alone concept. By the time Prosper and Hilary introduced the Semi-Pelagian argument (affirming both the necessity of grace and Original Sin), Synods had already convened and papal decrees were already issued.
Richard Coords wrote:
ReplyDelete"Have you located any information which suggests that there were other Christians in the early Church period (besides the Manichaean Gnostics), who affirmed determinism, and also affirmed that God was the 'author of sin'? In other words, was this a 'Christian belief' exclusive to the Gnostic Christians, or did others, perhaps more orthodox, also hold it to?"
No. As I said above, I haven't studied the issue much. You made the assertion that a particular belief was absent. I asked for more documentation than what you had provided. Now you're asking me for documentation against your position. Shouldn't you be documenting what you originally asserted?
And I've explained why we shouldn't just be concerned with Christian sources. If a Jewish source interpreted the Old Testament in a manner similar to what you're attributing to the Gnostics and Augustine, then your argument is weakened.
You write:
"Augustine claimed in his writings, that he was influenced in his discovery of grace, by fellow Catholic Bishops, Cyprian and Ambrose, but was unable to quote anything substantial from them. Since Ambrose was heavily involved in Neo-Platonic philosophy, and was allegedly known for applying Stoic principles in his sermons, I would have thought that Augustine could have turned up something from him, but no dice."
You're giving us your own summary of what Augustine said and your opinion of his assessment, and that summary is significantly different from what you initially wrote on the subject. Your original post suggested Manichaean influence on Augustine without the sort of Christian influence Augustine claimed.
From what little I've read on this subject, I doubt that Cyprian, Ambrose, or Gregory Nazianzen (also cited by Augustine) ever agreed more than partially with Augustine's view. But I don't know how sincere Augustine's appeal to those men was or how validly he could have developed his views from what those men wrote. I haven't read the original texts in question, nor have I read much on the subject from modern scholarship. I've only read brief descriptions of what Augustine claimed. I don't even know if all of the relevant texts are extant. That's why I want documentation rather than your own summary of what happened.
You write:
ReplyDelete"I still don’t see how you could suggest that Irenaeus might have been referring to 'other Gnostic charges,' unrelated to the Gnostic belief that God was the author of sin"
Again, the issue isn't whether Irenaeus was writing against some concept of God as the author of sin. Rather, the issue is what concept of God as the author of sin he was opposing. The concept can be defined in more than one way.
And Irenaeus was responding to different individuals in different contexts. As I've documented, one of the sources you've cited, Blastus, doesn't even seem to be relevant. Another source you've cited, Florinus, is described by Irenaeus as having held unique views. How do you get from individuals like Blastus and Florinus to Gnostics in general? You cited a passage from Irenaeus' Against Heresies in which he refers to heretics in the plural, but, as I documented, his description of the heretics in that passage differs significantly from Calvinism.
You write:
"Poor Wikipedia sure has taken a beating in this discussion. I understand what you are saying, but the only instances in which I cited Wikipedia was in basic information regarding the dualistic theology of the Gnostic, Valentinus, and also to confirm the widespread speculation that Augustine may have been influenced by his Gnostic roots. There's nothing really earth-shattering there, and I wasn’t really basing my entire argument on Wikipedia."
You referred to Wikipedia, but didn't tell us which Wikipedia article you were citing. The anonymity and poor track record of Wikipedia are problematic. It would be better to cite an original source or a patristic scholar, for example.
Regardless, I've explained why I think it's unlikely that Augustine's pre-Christian Manichaeism had much influence on his later beliefs.
You write:
"What I believe contributed to Augustine's views on predestination, not receiving widespread denunciation, was the fact that it rode on the back of the Pelagian controversy, in which Pelagius rejected the necessity of Grace (stemming from a rejection of Augustine's common prayer) and his rejection of Original Sin (which had a significant impact upon the Catholic doctrine on infant baptism). It's not as if Augustine first introduced his views on predestination, as a stand-alone concept."
The same could be said of Gnostics who combined various errors with their views of predestination.
Augustine's critics within mainstream Christianity offered alternatives that they considered sufficient to overcome Pelagianism without the beliefs of Augustine that you oppose. They could have required Augustine and those who agreed with him to reject the elements of their system that you oppose in order to have fellowship with them.
And you aren't explaining why Augustine thought he was free to propose such views to begin with.
I agree that his views were widely opposed, before his time, during his lifetime, and afterward. But I don't think his views were as unacceptable to ancient Christianity as your comparison to Gnosticism suggests. And your argument doesn't even touch on pre-Christian Judaism.
Hello Jason:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: “You’re giving us your own summary of what Augustine said and your opinion of his assessment, and that summary is significantly different from what you initially wrote on the subject. Your original post suggested Manichaean influence on Augustine without the sort of Christian influence Augustine claimed.”
Obviously Augustine wanted to cite "someone" for credibility, and the two names that he dropped (Cyprian and Abrose) did not provide conclusive quotes to support his predestinarian views. Likely, Augustine got his predestinarian arguments from the same Gnostics that Irenaeus refuted.
You wrote: “Again, the issue isn’t whether Irenaeus was writing against some concept of God as the author of sin. Rather, the issue is what concept of God as the author of sin he was opposing. The concept can be defined in more than one way.”
How many concepts of God being the “author of sin,” can a “Theistic” Determinist assert? Irenaeus’ refutation, citing Matthew 23:37, provided us with the context of their charge. (I cited Blastus because he was named together with Florinus in the Appendix quote, as the other Gnostic who alleged that God was the author of sin.)
You wrote: "You referred to Wikipedia..."
Goodness, I cited Wikipedia in my opinion statement regarding the Gnostic Valentinus (in terms of the Gnostic connection to dualism), including the oft-repeated question of how much of Augustine’s Gnostic Manichaean roots affected his later predestinarian views. This is general information.
You wrote: "I don't think his views were as unacceptable to ancient Christianity as your comparison to Gnosticism suggests."
As stated, Augustine piggy-backed his predestinarian views with the obvious errors of Pelagius. The main focus was on Pelagius’ challenge of the necessity of grace and Original Sin, in terms of how it challenged Catholic authority of infant baptism. The Semi-Pelagians later went after Augustine’s predestinarian views, but I argued that it was too late. Synods rendered decisions, papal decrees were issued.
Richard Coords wrote:
ReplyDelete"Obviously Augustine wanted to cite 'someone' for credibility, and the two names that he dropped (Cyprian and Abrose) did not provide conclusive quotes to support his predestinarian views. Likely, Augustine got his predestinarian arguments from the same Gnostics that Irenaeus refuted."
You aren't giving us any reason to agree with your assessment.
You write:
"How many concepts of God being the 'author of sin,' can a 'Theistic' Determinist assert? Irenaeus’ refutation, citing Matthew 23:37, provided us with the context of their charge. (I cited Blastus because he was named together with Florinus in the Appendix quote, as the other Gnostic who alleged that God was the author of sin.)"
You keep repeating arguments that have already been refuted. See Steve Hays' recent posts on the subject of authorship of sin, such as here. For example, belief in an evil god (such as identifying the God of the Old Testament as an evil god), which some of the early heretics held, would involve a god who intends evil results, not one who uses evil to accomplish good. That's not what Calvinists believe. We don't know much about what Florinus believed. We have little to go by. You keep making assumptions based on insufficient data, such as the title a later author (Eusebius) applies to a non-extant work that Irenaeus wrote. The title Eusebius assigns that work (one of two titles that were circulating in his day) doesn't tell us enough to justify your conclusions.
And you keep confusing sources. The reference to Matthew 23 doesn't come from Irenaeus' response to Florinus. Rather, it comes from Against Heresies, in a passage I've already addressed above.
Your explanation for why you cited Blastus doesn't justify your citation. Apparently, you were relying on an erroneous reference to Blastus in a sixteenth-century document. Blastus is irrelevant.
For more on Blastus, Florinus, and the title of Irenaeus' response to Florinus, see notes 1662 and 1663 here.
You write:
"Goodness, I cited Wikipedia in my opinion statement regarding the Gnostic Valentinus (in terms of the Gnostic connection to dualism), including the oft-repeated question of how much of Augustine’s Gnostic Manichaean roots affected his later predestinarian views. This is general information."
Why cite Wikipedia at all, then? If you're going to attribute the quote to Wikipedia, you ought to include an identification of the specific article within Wikipedia that you're relying on.
And why cite Wikipedia's comment about where Augustine's beliefs may have come from? It's not as though citing such a comment from Wikipedia renders Wikipedia's position probable.
You write:
ReplyDelete"As stated, Augustine piggy-backed his predestinarian views with the obvious errors of Pelagius. The main focus was on Pelagius’ challenge of the necessity of grace and Original Sin, in terms of how it challenged Catholic authority of infant baptism. The Semi-Pelagians later went after Augustine’s predestinarian views, but I argued that it was too late. Synods rendered decisions, papal decrees were issued."
You didn't "argue that it was too late". You asserted it, without any argument that would lead us to your conclusion.
Synods and papal decrees have often been disregarded. And you still aren't explaining why Augustine felt free to express such views to begin with and why synods and Popes would be so willing to side with him.
And you still haven't interacted with my point about pre-Christian Judaism.
Hello Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: “Your explanation for why you cited Blastus doesn’t justify your citation. Apparently, you were relying on an erroneous reference to Blastus in a sixteenth-century document. Blastus is irrelevant.”
I agree on this point, and the Appendix did not explain why it connected Florinus with Blastus on this charge.
You wrote: “The reference to Matthew 23 doesn’t come from Irenaeus’ response to Florinus.”
I agree. I’m mistaken on this point. Irenaeus didn’t single out Florinus in that chapter. It is unclear as to who he was specifically directing it to, though he had been dealing with the Marcionites, Valentinians and “other Gnostics” in the preceding chapters, and Florinus did join the Valentinians.
You wrote: “For example, belief in an evil god (such as identifying the God of the Old Testament as an evil god), which some of the early heretics held, would involve a god who intends evil results, not one who uses evil to accomplish good. That's not what Calvinists believe.”
The footnote of your link seems to suppose that Florinus’ assertion was more in terms of sovereignty implications, as “the object of Irenæus was to show that it was possible to assert God to be the sole origin and ruler of the universe, without holding evil to be his work.”
You wrote: “Why cite Wikipedia’s comment about where Augustine’s beliefs may have come from? It’s not as though citing such a comment from Wikipedia renders Wikipedia’s position probable.”
It’s not only probable, but it’s factual. Wikipedia stated a fact: “Some modern scholars have suggested that Manichaean ways of thinking influenced the development of some of Augustine’s ideas, such as the nature of good and evil, the idea of hell, the separation of groups into elect, hearers, and sinners, and the hostility to the flesh and sexual activity.” This isn’t speculation. It’s a fact that some scholars really have speculated this very thing. All along, I said that quotes were available upon request. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism#cite_note-12
You wrote: “You didn't ‘argue that it was too late’. You asserted it, without any argument that would lead us to your conclusion. Synods and papal decrees have often been disregarded. And you still aren't explaining why Augustine felt free to express such views to begin with and why synods and Popes would be so willing to side with him.”
Politics. Pelagius challenged the authority of the Catholic Church on infant baptism. Augustine, a Catholic Bishop, rose to its defense, as well as many other major issues, and is today a revered Saint of the Catholic Church as a result. Therefore, it would seem counterproductive for them to anathematize him over his predestinarian views.
You wrote: “And you still haven't interacted with my point about pre-Christian Judaism.”
I made no comment on any association with pre-Christian Judaism.
Is it unthinkable, that Augustine should borrow from Florinus, just as he borrowed from Plotinus?
ReplyDeletePlotinus was a Neo-Platonic philosopher whom Augustine spokely highly of, and adapted theistic concepts.
So is it unthinkable, that Augustine should borrow from Gnostic arguments as well?
Augustine writes: “Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said aught that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it. For, as the Egyptians had not only the idols and heavy burdens which the people of Israel hated and fled from, but also vessels and ornaments of gold and silver, and garments, which the same people when going out of Egypt appropriated to themselves, designing them for a better use, not doing this on their own authority, but by the command of God, the Egyptians themselves, in their ignorance, providing them with things which they themselves were not making a good use of; in the same way all branches of heathen learning have not only false and superstitious fancies and heavy burdens of unnecessary toil, which every one of us, when going out under the leadership of Christ from the fellowship of the heathen, ought to abhor and avoid; but they contain also liberal instruction which is better adapted to the use of the truth, and some most excellent precepts of morality; and some truths in regard even to the worship of the One God are found among them. Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they did not create themselves, but dug out of the mines of God’s providence which are everywhere scattered abroad, and are perversely and unlawfully prostituting to the worship of devils. These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel. Their garments, also, that is, human institutions such as are adapted to that intercourse with men which is indispensable in this life, we must take and turn to a Christian use.” (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 40, Section 60)
Augustine adds: “But they gave their gold and their silver and their garments to the people of God as they were going out of Egypt, not knowing how the things they gave would be turned to the service of Christ. For what was done at the time of the exodus was no doubt a type prefiguring what happens now.” (On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 40, Section 61)
Richard Coords wrote:
ReplyDelete"It’s not only probable, but it’s factual. Wikipedia stated a fact: 'Some modern scholars have suggested that Manichaean ways of thinking influenced the development of some of Augustine’s ideas, such as the nature of good and evil, the idea of hell, the separation of groups into elect, hearers, and sinners, and the hostility to the flesh and sexual activity.' This isn’t speculation. It’s a fact that some scholars really have speculated this very thing. All along, I said that quotes were available upon request. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism#cite_note-12"
An URL isn't a quote. And I wasn't asking whether some scholars hold the view in question. Rather, I was saying that their holding that view wouldn't make the view probable.
You write:
"Politics. Pelagius challenged the authority of the Catholic Church on infant baptism. Augustine, a Catholic Bishop, rose to its defense, as well as many other major issues, and is today a revered Saint of the Catholic Church as a result. Therefore, it would seem counterproductive for them to anathematize him over his predestinarian views."
You're telling us what you believe, but without giving us any reason to agree with what you believe. How do you supposedly know that the people in question would have "anathematized him over his predestinarian views" under (relevantly) different circumstances?
The issue isn't whether there was widespread opposition to Augustine's views on some issues related to Calvinism. I've said that there was widespread opposition. I don't dispute that point. But you can oppose a position without considering it something that warrants an anathema.
For example, many heretics over the centuries have been criticized for interpreting scripture in a manner that's too literal or too non-literal. The same charge has been brought against individuals and groups who were considered orthodox by those who made the charge. I discussed an example in an article at this blog last year. An Eastern Orthodox poster cited some patristic condemnations of premillennialism and applied those condemnations to premillennialism in general. But, as I documented in the exchange linked above, the patristic sources in question distinguished between different types of premillennialism. They could oppose premillennialism in general, yet distinguish between a form of premillennialism that denies orthodox Christology and another form that doesn't. They could disagree with both forms, yet consider one of them to be a more significant error than the other. A condemnation of a heretic who held the worse form of premillennialism wouldn't logically imply the same sort of condemnation of somebody like Justin Martyr or Irenaeus, who held a different form.
Similarly, somebody like Justin Martyr or Irenaeus could criticize heretics for their views on issues like predestination and free will without thinking that anybody who holds the same views or similar ones is heretical. It's not as though these groups' beliefs about issues like predestination and free will were the only beliefs that men like Justin and Irenaeus opposed. If a Presbyterian criticizes a Jehovah's Witness for having too literal a view of eschatology, it doesn't follow that he would place a dispensationalist Baptist in the same category as a Jehovah's Witness, just because he thinks both individuals have too literal a view of eschatology.
Is it your position that Calvinism isn't Christian? It seems that the large majority of professing Christians today consider Calvinism a form of Christianity, even if they think that Calvinism is wrong about issues like predestination and free will. Do you think those people are motivated by "politics", like the people who accepted Augustine's orthodoxy in patristic times?
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"I made no comment on any association with pre-Christian Judaism."
That's the point. You should be commenting on it. I've explained how it's relevant.
You write:
"Is it unthinkable, that Augustine should borrow from Florinus, just as he borrowed from Plotinus?"
The issue is what's probable, not what's possible. Something can be thinkable without having been shown probable.
And the examples of "borrowing" that you go on to cite from Augustine undermine your position rather than furthering it. The first quote from Augustine that you just posted refers to using non-Christian resources that are consistent with Christianity to support Christian principles. What Augustine is doing is what Paul did in Acts 17. All of us do similar things in our everyday lives. Was the computer you're using in this discussion invented and manufactured entirely by Christians? What about the words and figures of speech you're using, for example? Were all of them coined and popularized by Christians, without any involvement by non-Christians? Has every concept and argument you've ever used in understanding and arguing for Christianity come solely from Christian sources?
You've given us two quotes from Augustine, both from the same chapter in his work On Christian Doctrine. Here's what you left out, which comes between your two quotes:
"And what else have many good and faithful men among our brethren done? Do we not see with what a quantity of gold and silver and garments Cyprian, that most persuasive teacher and most blessed martyr, was loaded when he came out of Egypt? How much Lactantius brought with him? And Victorinus, and Optatus, and Hilary, not to speak of living men! How much Greeks out of number have borrowed! And prior to all these, that most faithful servant of God, Moses, had done the same thing; for of him it is written that he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. And to none of all these would heathen superstition (especially in those times when, kicking against the yoke of Christ, it was persecuting the Christians) have ever furnished branches of knowledge it held useful, if it had suspected they were about to turn them to the use of worshipping the One God, and thereby overturning the vain worship of idols." (On Christian Doctrine, 2:40)
Are you going to criticize all of those other men Augustine cites?
In the surrounding chapters, Augustine warns against the dangers involved in consulting non-Christian sources. And he's addressing the acquisition of knowledge in general, not just knowledge of issues like predestination and free will. In summary:
ReplyDelete"But just as poor as the store of gold and silver and garments which the people of Israel brought with them out of Egypt was in comparison with the riches which they afterwards attained at Jerusalem, and which reached their height in the reign of King Solomon, so poor is all the useful knowledge which is gathered from the books of the heathen when compared with the knowledge of Holy Scripture. For whatever man may have learnt from other sources, if it is hurtful, it is there condemned; if it is useful, it is therein contained. And while every man may find there all that he has learnt of useful elsewhere, he will find there in much greater abundance things that are to be found nowhere else, but can be learnt only in the wonderful sublimity and wonderful simplicity of the Scriptures." (On Christian Doctrine, 2:42)
Augustine's willingness to be critical of Manichaeism and other non-Christian belief systems, including ones he had been involved with before he became a Christian, is demonstrated by his conversion and his opposition to those systems as a Christian. As you've acknowledged, he didn't arrive at the beliefs you're criticizing until late in his Christian life. It's not as if he went directly from his pre-Christian beliefs to the later beliefs you're criticizing. There was a lengthy process of development inbetween.
And, as we've already discussed, Augustine said that he found ground for his beliefs in earlier Christian sources. He may have been lying. He may have been honest, but have been misinterpreting those earlier sources. He may have been interpreting them correctly, but developing their views further than those earlier Christians had developed their beliefs. Or those earlier sources may have been inconsistent, sometimes agreeing with Augustine, but contradicting him at other points. I don't know.
I also don't know just how widespread the absence and contradiction of Augustine's views were prior to his time. As I explained above, widespread absence of Augustine's beliefs or disagreement with those beliefs among the church fathers would be significant, but would only be a partial answer to the question of how historically rooted his beliefs were. What about sources other than the church fathers? To answer that sort of question, you would need to produce better evidence than you have so far.
I notice that Richard Coords is casting the issue in terms of authorship. Apparently he believes in two different authors: an author of good and an author (or authors) of evil. Since authorship is a creative metaphor, that's classic dualism.
ReplyDeleteHello Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: “An URL isn't a quote. And I wasn't asking whether some scholars hold the view in question. Rather, I was saying that their holding that view wouldn't make the view probable.”
Understood. But it is useful to know that “some scholars” have, indeed, also speculated over a possible Manichaean influence.
You wrote: “You’re telling us what you believe, but without giving us any reason to agree with what you believe. How do you supposedly know that the people in question would have ‘anathematized him over his predestinarian views’ under (relevantly) different circumstances?”
Actually, given just how valuable Augustine was to the Catholic Church, on so many other issues, even if Augustine’s predestinarian views were just a stand-alone issue (apart from the Pelagian attack on Catholic authority viz. infant baptism), it still would have been a longshot for him to have been anathematized for it by the Catholic Church (or at least contradicted). He is a Saint to them. Yes, his predestinarian views were controversial, in and of themselves, as shown by the letters from Prosper and Hilary, and later in 529, after a long period of controversy, officially rejected by the Catholic Chuch at the 2nd Counsel of Orange. However, if Augustine’s predestinarian views were so important to the Catholic Church, why did it not persist among them?
You wrote: “The issue isn’t whether there was widespread opposition to Augustine’s views on some issues related to Calvinism. I’ve said that there was widespread opposition. I don’t dispute that point. But you can oppose a position without considering it something that warrants an anathema.”
Agreed.
You wrote: “It seems that the large majority of professing Christians today consider Calvinism a form of Christianity, even if they think that Calvinism is wrong about issues like predestination and free will.”
Agreed.
You wrote: “Do you think those people are motivated by ‘politics’, like the people who accepted Augustine’s orthodoxy in patristic times?”
Do I think that the large majority of professing Christians today, are motivated by church politics, in order to favor one doctrine over another? No. The modern Catholic Church? Certainly.
You wrote: “You should be commenting on it. I've explained how it’s relevant.”
I haven’t researched that aspect of it, and cannot speak towards it. Nevertheless, what is relevant, in my mind, is that 1) Irenaeus rejected that God is the author of sin, and 2) while rejecting the doctrines of the Marcionites, Valentinians and “other Gnostics,” he included his defense of “liberty.” That helps to contextualize their author of sin charge, which is very relevant to this discussion. Why else do you suppose that Irenaeus brought up his commentary on Matthew 23:37 & free will? He had been refuting the Marcionites and Valentinians. Surely, Irenaeus mentions it for some reason. No?
You wrote: “The examples of ‘borrowing’ that you go on to cite from Augustine undermine your position rather than furthering it. The first quote from Augustine that you just posted refers to using non-Christian resources that are consistent with Christianity to support Christian principles.”
ReplyDeleteIf they are consistent with Christian principles...sometimes they are not. In “Concerning the God of Socrates,” Apuleius wrote that the philosophy of Socrates was inspired by a demon, which Augustine rejected. Justin Martyr argued that Gnosticism can be traced to a single demonic source. You must be careful that what you are borrowing from, is not a product of the doctrine of demons. For instance, I would never borrow from the theology of Eliphaz in the book of Job, in order to extract what I think might be a Christian principle. Why? Because his theology was inspired by a demon. (Job 4:12-21) The problem is that Augustine has shown that he does not mind borrowing from secular or heretical sources, in order to extract what he feels are Christian principles. It’s like the Jehovah’s Witness appealing to a spiritist like Johannes Greber for support on their interpretation of John 1:1, in applying what they feel is a Christian principle. The Jehovah’s Witnesses even state that a truth taught by the Devil, is just as much a truth if it was taught by God. Well…how do you know that it really was a truth taught by the devil? How do you know that it is not contaminated? Borrowing from Gnostic sources on the sovereignty of God, is drinking from a poisonous well. I could easily see a Calvinist inferring that it was the providence of God, that Augustine spent 10 years as a Gnostic Manichaean, in order to apply sovereignty principles to Christian theology.
You wrote: “It’s not as if he went directly from his pre-Christian beliefs to the later beliefs you’re criticizing. There was a lengthy process of development inbetween.”
Agreed. The question is whether in addressing the Pelagian controversy, whether he rediscovered Gnostic Manichaean determinism in Scripture.
You wrote: “And, as we’ve already discussed, Augustine said that he found ground for his beliefs in earlier Christian sources. He may have been lying. He may have been honest, but have been misinterpreting those earlier sources. He may have been interpreting them correctly, but developing their views further than those earlier Christians had developed their beliefs. Or those earlier sources may have been inconsistent, sometimes agreeing with Augustine, but contradicting him at other points. I don’t know.”
(Given Ambrose’ connection to Neo-Platonic philosophy, and his apparent, oft references to Stoic philosophy, I don’t doubt that Ambrose would have readily agreed with Augustine’s predestinarian views.) Augustine cited Cyprian and Ambrose in inconclusive statements. If he had something strong, he would have quoted it. No? He was well aware of Irenaeus’ views, no doubt. Augustine advanced what only appears to be a “new” argument, which, based upon Irenaeus refution of the Gnostics in the defense of free will, was apparently, not new at all. I believe that he was borrowing from earlier sources, but just not ones that he wishes to mention. And we know that he doesn’t mind borrowing from, what he feels, are questionable sources.
You wrote: “I also don’t know just how widespread the absence and contradiction of Augustine’s views were prior to his time.”
ReplyDeleteAmong non-Gnostic Christians, there was widespread advocacy of free will. Why didn’t Irenaeus get summoned to a Synod after his comments on Matthew 23:37, and his comments on free will?
Irenaeus: “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.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxxviii.html
Irenaeus: “Man has received the knowledge of good and evil. It is good to obey God, and to believe in Him, and to keep His commandment, and this is the life of man; as not to obey God is evil, and this is his death. Since God, therefore, gave [to man] such mental power (magnanimitatem) man knew both the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience, that the eye of the mind, receiving experience of both, may with judgment make choice of the better things; and that he may never become indolent or neglectful of God’s command; and learning by experience that it is an evil thing which deprives him of life, that is, disobedience to God, may never attempt it at all, but that, knowing that what preserves his life, namely, obedience to God, is good, he may diligently keep it with all earnestness.
Irenaeus: “Those persons, therefore, who have apostatized from the light given by the Father, and transgressed the law of liberty, have done so through their own fault, since they have been created free agents, and possessed of power over themselves.”
“Now, since all good things are with God, they who by their own determination fly from God, do defraud themselves of all good things; and having been [thus] defrauded of all good things with respect to God, they shall consequently fall under the just judgment of God.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xl.html
Richard Coords wrote:
ReplyDelete"Actually, given just how valuable Augustine was to the Catholic Church, on so many other issues, even if Augustine’s predestinarian views were just a stand-alone issue (apart from the Pelagian attack on Catholic authority viz. infant baptism), it still would have been a longshot for him to have been anathematized for it by the Catholic Church (or at least contradicted). He is a Saint to them."
You aren't giving us any reason to conclude that there would have been a desire to anathematize Augustine without the mitigating factors you're citing. You tell us, without demonstrating it, that the Christians of Augustine's day would have wanted to anathematize Augustine if there hadn't been some mitigating factors in place, and you haven't demonstrated that those alleged mitigating factors were what prevented them from anathematizing him.
You keep referring to "the Catholic Church", but there wasn't any one denomination to which everybody belonged. Even in the West and even a few centuries into church history, the concept of a papacy was sometimes rejected. The Eastern Orthodox patristic scholar John McGuckin writes, "The issue of Pelagianism was never a large-scale heretical movement at all; more of a manufactured controversy to advance the grace theology of the circle of Augustine. It has, for that reason, never been extensively received as a fruitful discussion in the Eastern church traditions." (The Westminster Handbook To Patristic Theology [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004], pp. 257-258) Augustine's reputation and influence have varied.
You write:
"However, if Augustine’s predestinarian views were so important to the Catholic Church, why did it not persist among them?"
I didn't argue that his views were "so important to them".
You write:
ReplyDelete"I haven’t researched that aspect of it, and cannot speak towards it. Nevertheless, what is relevant, in my mind, is that 1) Irenaeus rejected that God is the author of sin, and 2) while rejecting the doctrines of the Marcionites, Valentinians and 'other Gnostics,' he included his defense of 'liberty.' That helps to contextualize their author of sin charge, which is very relevant to this discussion. Why else do you suppose that Irenaeus brought up his commentary on Matthew 23:37 & free will? He had been refuting the Marcionites and Valentinians. Surely, Irenaeus mentions it for some reason. No?"
The beliefs of pre-Christian Jews don't make the Gnostics, Irenaeus, and other later sources irrelevant, but they do lessen the significance of those later sources.
And your assessment of the issues surrounding Irenaeus is still problematic. Irenaeus could disagree with an Augustinian understanding of God's relationship with sin without having considered the Augustinian view equivalent to a Gnostic understanding of the issue and without having considered Augustine's error sufficient to warrant an anathema.
Our discussion of Irenaeus' view of the authorship of sin has been focused on a treatise he wrote against Florinus, a treatise that apparently circulated under at least two titles at the time of Eusebius, one of which made reference to the authorship of sin. As I've documented, Irenaeus refers to the errors of Florinus as unique. You can't take his response to other heretics in another treatise and use that response to define what he argued in his treatise against Florinus.
You write:
"For instance, I would never borrow from the theology of Eliphaz in the book of Job, in order to extract what I think might be a Christian principle. Why? Because his theology was inspired by a demon. (Job 4:12-21)"
Theology isn't all that can be borrowed. If Eliphaz affirms the law of non-contradiction, or he uses a figure of speech that's helpful, his errors on other matters wouldn't imply that we can't agree with him about the law of non-contradiction or use his figure of speech.
You write:
"The problem is that Augustine has shown that he does not mind borrowing from secular or heretical sources, in order to extract what he feels are Christian principles."
So do other Christians. You've ignored the examples I cited in my last response to you.
You write:
ReplyDelete"It’s like the Jehovah’s Witness appealing to a spiritist like Johannes Greber for support on their interpretation of John 1:1, in applying what they feel is a Christian principle."
We reject their view of John 1:1 on other grounds, and you haven't demonstrated that Augustine appealed to the Gnostics in an equivalent manner. And if you cite a source to support a belief, it doesn't follow that the source in question originated your belief.
You write:
"The Jehovah’s Witnesses even state that a truth taught by the Devil, is just as much a truth if it was taught by God. Well…how do you know that it really was a truth taught by the devil? How do you know that it is not contaminated?"
The same way the apostle Paul and other Christians who have borrowed from non-Christian sources have been able to discern such things. And Augustine addresses such issues in the context surrounding the passages you cited, as I explained in my last response to you. You're not interacting with what Augustine said. You're quoting some portions of what he said, sometimes out of context, while ignoring other portions, in addition to assigning to him motives and behavior for which you offer no documentation.
You write:
"Borrowing from Gnostic sources on the sovereignty of God, is drinking from a poisonous well. I could easily see a Calvinist inferring that it was the providence of God, that Augustine spent 10 years as a Gnostic Manichaean, in order to apply sovereignty principles to Christian theology."
You haven't demonstrated that Augustine "borrowed from Gnostic sources" in any relevant sense, and the fact that you "could easily see a Calvinist inferring" something isn't sufficient grounds for us to conclude that any Calvinist, much less Augustine, has inferred such a thing.
You write:
"The question is whether in addressing the Pelagian controversy, whether he rediscovered Gnostic Manichaean determinism in Scripture."
You haven't demonstrated that Augustine's view is "Gnostic Manichaean determinism". And he didn't claim that he only saw his beliefs in scripture. He also said that he saw them in earlier post-apostolic Christian sources. And you haven't interacted with the evidence I've cited against your theory of how his beliefs originated. Aside from your appeal to a vague comment in a Wikipedia article about what "some scholars" believe, what have you offered us to substantiate your theory?
You write:
"(Given Ambrose’ connection to Neo-Platonic philosophy, and his apparent, oft references to Stoic philosophy, I don’t doubt that Ambrose would have readily agreed with Augustine’s predestinarian views.)"
Then should we add Ambrose to the list of Christians who supposedly should have been anathematized, but weren't? Was the reaction to Ambrose, like the reaction to Augustine, determined by "politics"?
You write:
ReplyDelete"Augustine cited Cyprian and Ambrose in inconclusive statements. If he had something strong, he would have quoted it. No?"
That would depend on the context. (And as I told you earlier, he didn't just cite those two men.) But I've only seen Augustine's comments described. I haven't read them myself. Have you read them? If so, why don't you quote them for us, with some of the surrounding context?
You write:
"Augustine advanced what only appears to be a 'new' argument, which, based upon Irenaeus refution of the Gnostics in the defense of free will, was apparently, not new at all. I believe that he was borrowing from earlier sources, but just not ones that he wishes to mention."
You keep telling us what you believe on this subject, but without demonstrating that your belief is correct.
High views of predestination weren't unique to Gnosticism prior to Augustine. Many people outside of mainstream Judaism and mainstream Christianity held such views, not just Gnostics. So did some mainstream Jews. Whether some mainstream Christians did as well, prior to Augustine, remains an open question in our discussion. You can't just assume your conclusion without further argument. And even if we assumed that no mainstream Christian held a high view of predestination prior to Augustine, it wouldn't follow that he derived his view from Gnosticism.
You write:
"Why didn’t Irenaeus get summoned to a Synod after his comments on Matthew 23:37, and his comments on free will?"
Using your reasoning, I could repeat your one-word answer: politics. But I never suggested that Irenaeus should have been "summoned to a synod". The existence of a high view of predestination among one or more mainstream Christians prior to Augustine wouldn't logically imply the summoning of Irenaeus to a synod.
I want to discuss some further illustrations of what I'm trying to communicate on the subject of borrowing. As I said above, it needs to be demonstrated that Augustine borrowed from Gnosticism in some relevant sense. Why have I added the "relevant" qualifier?
ReplyDeleteThink of some of the arguments used by William Lane Craig. He acknowledges that the Kalam cosmological argument, one of the arguments he uses for the existence of God, came from Muslim sources. And Molinism has Roman Catholic roots. Yet, many Arminians think highly of Craig and use his arguments on such subjects. You could say that Craig borrowed from Islam and Roman Catholicism in a sense, but the manner in which he borrowed from them doesn't suggest that the arguments in question are invalid or shouldn't be used. If the Kalam and Molinist arguments are logically valid, then the history of their use in Islam and Roman Catholicism doesn't suggest that the arguments should be rejected.
Similarly, a Christian who first believes in the Bible because his parents tell him he should do so can later believe in the Bible for better reasons. If William Lane Craig had first believed in the Bible because his parents told him to, it wouldn't make sense for an atheist opponent in one of his debates to argue against Craig's beliefs on the basis of how they originated.
In the discussion in this thread, Richard Coords hasn't even demonstrated that Augustine's high view of predestination came to him from a Gnostic source. And even if he were to demonstrate such a thing, it would remain an open question whether Augustine's view is correct and whether he had better reasons for holding that view later in life.
Hello Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: “You aren't giving us any reason to conclude that there would have been a desire to anathematize Augustine without the mitigating factors you're citing. You tell us, without demonstrating it, that the Christians of Augustine's day would have wanted to anathematize Augustine if there hadn't been some mitigating factors in place, and you haven't demonstrated that those alleged mitigating factors were what prevented them from anathematizing him.”
Evidence of mitigating factors was the fact that Augustinian predestination was not the leading issue of the Pelagian controversy, and the fact that Augustine was a defender of Catholic Authority against Pelagius.
Augustinian predestination received acceptance by the Catholic Church much later in 529. The leading issue of the Pelagian controversy was the Pelagian threat against Catholic authority, in which he rejected the necessity of grace and Original Sin, which had a direct bearing on Catholic authority, concerning infant baptism. That was the focus of the original Synods, not Augustinian predestination. Even the Semi-Pelagians, as they were later disparagingly labeled, agreed with the Synods in favor of the necessity of grace and Original Sin. As for Augustinian predestination, it was very controversial indeed, as even his own disciples, Prosper and Hilary, had written Augustine concerning it. The orthodox position for the first 300 years was against determinism, and it wasn’t until a hundred years of dispute, that Augustinian predestination was finally settled in favor of Augustine by the Catholic Church in 529. By that time, Augustine was already the champion of the Catholic Church in critical areas. That’s the background.
You wrote: “Then should we add Ambrose to the list of Christians who supposedly should have been anathematized, but weren't? Was the reaction to Ambrose, like the reaction to Augustine, determined by ‘politics’?”
Ambrose didn’t go on record. Augustine did.
You wrote: “The apostle Paul and other Christians who have borrowed from non-Christian sources have been able to discern such things.”
We disagree on the merit of borrowing theology from pagan sources.
You wrote: “You haven't demonstrated that Augustine's view is ‘Gnostic Manichaean determinism’. And he didn't claim that he only saw his beliefs in scripture. He also said that he saw them in earlier post-apostolic Christian sources.”
But Augustine “was” a Gnostic Manichaean, and they “did” teach determinism, and Augustine “did” affirm determinism, and I'm not the first person to suggest a connection. If you feel that Augustine had support for his determinism in post-apostolic “Christian” sources, please feel free to share it.
I don’t know exactly what variety of determinism that the Gnostics taught, except to say that they adapted Platonic determinism into their theology, and that it was the kind of determinism which affirmed that God was the author of sin (in some way), in which Irenaeus and Justin Martyr both felt the need to respond with a strong defense of free will. Is it a perfect comparison to what Augustine taught? I cannot tell, except that yes, Augustine did teach determinism (though how closely it relates to gnostic determinism is unknown), except to say that John Calvin did comment that it was the kind of determinism in which Augustine’s detractors, whether they were correct or not, compared it to Stoic fatalism.
ReplyDeleteRichard Coords wrote:
ReplyDelete"Evidence of mitigating factors was the fact that Augustinian predestination was not the leading issue of the Pelagian controversy, and the fact that Augustine was a defender of Catholic Authority against Pelagius."
You aren't giving us any reason to conclude that such factors prevented the Christians of Augustine's day from "anathematizing him" (the term you originally used). If I were to claim that the Christians of Irenaeus' day wanted to anathematize him for his belief in the canonicity of The Shepherd Of Hermas, but that they didn't do so because the canonicity of that book wasn't "the leading issue" in the dispute with Gnosticism and because Irenaeus was "a defender of Catholic Authority" against the Gnostics, nobody should find such a claim convincing. We don't begin with the default assumption that the Christians of that time would have wanted to anathematize people over the canonicity of The Shepherd Of Hermas, then go looking for possible explanations for why they didn't anathematize an individual who seems to have been a candidate for such anathematizing. Rather, the alleged desire of Christians to anathematize such people needs to be demonstrated. The same is true with regard to Augustine.
And you've ignored what I said about the nature of the church in Augustine's day and what I cited from John McGuckin.
You write:
"The orthodox position for the first 300 years was against determinism"
I wouldn't use the same terminology you're using, but, yes, there was widespread opposition to Augustine's view prior to Augustine's time. As I said earlier, that's a significant argument against Calvinism. It's one of the reasons why I'm not a Calvinist. You ought to focus on that sort of argument, without making the Gnostics out to be more significant in this context than they actually are, offering dubious and undocumented speculations about the sources and motives behind Augustine's beliefs, etc.
You write:
ReplyDelete"Ambrose didn’t go on record. Augustine did."
If Ambrose didn't go on record, then how do you know what he believed? And if you think he held such views off the record, then why did you dismiss Augustine's claim to have been influenced by Ambrose? Augustine had met Ambrose, and he would have had access to writings of Ambrose that are no longer extant. Why, then, have you been so dismissive of Augustine's claim to have been influenced by him on the issues in question?
You write:
"We disagree on the merit of borrowing theology from pagan sources."
The phrase "borrowing theology from pagan sources", like the phrase "author of sin", can be defined in more ways than one. You should interact with the examples I cited (Paul in Acts 17, William Lane Craig's use of the Kalam argument and Molinism, etc.), which are more specific than a vague phrase like "borrowing theology from pagan sources".
You write:
"If you feel that Augustine had support for his determinism in post-apostolic 'Christian' sources, please feel free to share it."
Asking me to document that your position is false doesn't relieve you of the burden of arguing for your position. I've explained that I haven't studied the history of Augustine's beliefs much. I can ask you to document your claims without having any documentation of my own to offer against your claims.
But I do have some reason to think that Augustine wasn't the first mainstream Christian to hold such views. Issues like predestination and free will were commonly discussed before the time of Christ, well before Gnosticism arose. Just as people held a wide variety of beliefs on such issues within Greek and Roman culture and within Judaism, for example, it would make sense for a wide variety of views to have been held among mainstream Christians. Christianity is, after all, a fulfillment of Judaism. Most of the texts of the Christian Bible were possessed by the Jews who held such a variety of views on issues like predestination and free will. And Augustine claimed to have precedent for his beliefs in earlier Christian sources. As I said before, I don't know much at this point about the nature and credibility of Augustine's claim. But you don't seem to either. When I ask you for documentation to support your assessment of Augustine's claim, you don't provide it. And in the process of consulting some sources during our discussion over these past few days, I've come across some scholars who claim that there was some precedent for Augustine's view within mainstream Christianity. I have some specific patristic texts in mind that I want to look into, but I'm only in the early stages of doing that. I said earlier that I think it's unlikely that Augustine's view was unprecedented. I'm even more persuaded of that conclusion now.
You write:
ReplyDelete"I don’t know exactly what variety of determinism that the Gnostics taught, except to say that they adapted Platonic determinism into their theology, and that it was the kind of determinism which affirmed that God was the author of sin (in some way), in which Irenaeus and Justin Martyr both felt the need to respond with a strong defense of free will. Is it a perfect comparison to what Augustine taught? I cannot tell, except that yes, Augustine did teach determinism (though how closely it relates to gnostic determinism is unknown), except to say that John Calvin did comment that it was the kind of determinism in which Augustine’s detractors, whether they were correct or not, compared it to Stoic fatalism."
That sort of ambiguity weakens your argument. The Gnostics held a lot of false beliefs, and they might not have included some qualifiers that Augustine or a Calvinist would.
And people often approach a heretic's error differently than they approach the same error or a similar one made by an orthodox individual. See my premillennialism example discussed above. Heretics often reach their conclusions for different reasons, under different circumstances. Even if Irenaeus would have thought that a Gnostic and Augustine had erred in a similar way on a particular issue, he likely would have taken into account how Augustine arrived at that error, what use he was making of it, and other mitigating factors. Sometimes people are inconsistent in ways they shouldn't be. They make much of an error in one context that they make less of in another context, for bad reasons. They overlook a fault in a relative that they aren't willing to overlook in a co-worker. They're quick to make excuses for the behavior of their own child, but not so quick to make excuses for the behavior of a neighbor's child. I'm not aware of any passage in Irenaeus in which he states that holding views such as Augustine's would be enough by itself to warrant an anathema. But even if he had made such a comment, we would have to consider the possibility that he was wrong and wasn't speaking for the entirety of mainstream Christianity in his day.
As I said earlier, there's an element of truth to your argument. You ought to be focused on how widely Augustine's views were absent and contradicted prior to his time. You can do that without making such dubious claims about Gnosticism, without offering such unlikely speculations about Augustine's sources and motives, and without claiming that nobody within mainstream Christianity held such views prior to Augustine's time.
"It's one of the reasons why I'm not a Calvinist."
ReplyDeleteEngwer, you're not a Calvinist!?!
By Jove, what are you, man?
Truth Unites... and Divides wrote:
ReplyDelete"By Jove, what are you, man?"
Still thinking about and studying the issues. I wouldn't identify myself as an Arminian either. I'm closer to Calvinism. I believe in justification through faith alone, imputed righteousness, the preservation of the saints, and that the objections to Calvinism are generally weaker than the objections to Arminianism, for example.
Hello Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: “You aren't giving us any reason to conclude that such factors prevented the Christians of Augustine's day from ‘anathematizing him’ (the term you originally used).”
I believe I that I’ve given reasons, but not conclusive enough to your satisfaction.
You wrote: “I wouldn’t use the same terminology you’re using, but, yes, there was widespread opposition to Augustine’s view prior to Augustine’s time.”
Who was that ‘widespread opposition’ against? Who was their ‘defense of liberty’ against? It seemed like it was always against the Gnostics, but I agree that that, does not prove, in and of itself, that Augustine borrowed their proof-texts, in the development of his determinism. I merely speculate it, based upon Augustine’s commentary in applying Egyptian gold.
You wrote: “If Ambrose didn't go on record, then how do you know what he believed?”
Ambrose loved Platonic philosophy and was also known for applying Stoic principles in his sermons. At the same time, Ambrose did not develop the predestinarian principles of Augustine, and thus there was little to quote from him, in order to truly claim him for support. Mainly, Augustine cited Cyprian and Ambrose on the necessity of grace, which was one of the chief challenges of Pelagius. I believe that Pelagius’ arguments were the low-hanging fruit, whereas Semi-Pelagianism was a much more difficult controversy, and hence, why it took so long for it to be rejected by the Catholic Church in 529.
You wrote: “And if you think he held such views off the record, then why did you dismiss Augustine's claim to have been influenced by Ambrose?”
Since Ambrose didn’t develop the predestinarian argument, Augustine had to have gotten it somewhere. Was it strictly from the pages of Scripture? Augustine claims that it was the writing of Cyprian, but Cyprian’s comment was inconclusive in support of Augustinian predestination. I’m convinced that Augustine developed his doctrine from someone, but is not telling us.
You wrote: “Paul in Acts 17, William Lane Craig’s use of the Kalam argument and Molinism, etc.), which are more specific than a vague phrase like ‘borrowing theology from pagan sources’.”
What verse in Acts 17 do you feel is most closely related to what Augustine had asserted, in terms of his Egyptian gold analogy?
You wrote: “Asking me to document that your position is false doesn't relieve you of the burden of arguing for your position.”
I will present the quotes from Augustine, and let you make your decision.
You wrote: “But I do have some reason to think that Augustine wasn't the first mainstream Christian to hold such views.”
I agree. But why didn’t Augustine quote them, as he explicitly quoted Cyprian and Ambrose, primarily concerning the necessity of grace?
You wrote: “And Augustine claimed to have precedent for his beliefs in earlier Christian sources.”
No, in terms of determinism; yes, in terms of the necessity of grace.
You wrote: “When I ask you for documentation to support your assessment of Augustine's claim, you don't provide it.”
I will. My concern was whether the discussion that we are having would become overly expansive and time consuming. I’ll also provide you with the links.
You wrote: “I have some specific patristic texts in mind that I want to look into, but I'm only in the early stages of doing that.”
ReplyDeleteVery good. I look forward to whatever you may be able to turn it.
You wrote “That sort of ambiguity weakens your argument. The Gnostics held a lot of false beliefs, and they might not have included some qualifiers that Augustine or a Calvinist would.”
The main problem is that I do not have anything from within Gnosticism in order to quote their views concerning determinism. I only have what the patristics used in their refutations.
You wrote: “I’m not aware of any passage in Irenaeus in which he states that holding views such as Augustine's would be enough by itself to warrant an anathema.”
I agree that we don’t have a lot of information.
You wrote: “You ought to be focused on how widely Augustine's views were absent and contradicted prior to his time.”
I found comments from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, but I haven’t found anything truly definitive. I understand that some Calvinists do agree with free will, but from a Compatibilistic standpoint. Thus, Compatibilists might agree with Irenaeus, thus deflating my contention that Irenaeus was refuting determinism. However, how many Compatibilists ever appealed to Matthew 23:37?
Augustine: “It was not thus that that pious and humble teacher thought--I speak of the most blessed Cyprian--when he said ‘that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own.’ [Cyprian, Testimonies to Quirinus, Book iii. ch. 4] And in order to show this, he appealed to the apostle as a witness, where he said, ‘For what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received it, why boastest thou as if thou hadst not received it?’ [1 Cor. iv. 7] And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God’s gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God’s grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. And this my error is sufficiently indicated in some small works of mine written before my episcopate. Among these is that which you have mentioned in your letters [Hilary’s Letter, No. 226 in the collection of Augustin’s Letters] wherein is an exposition of certain propositions from the Epistle to the Romans. Eventually, when I was retracting all my small works, and was committing that retractation to writing, of which task I had already completed two books before I had taken up your more lengthy letters,--when in the first volume I had reached the retractation of this book, I then spoke thus:--‘Also discussing, I say, “what God could have chosen in him who was as yet unborn, whom He said that the elder should serve; and what in the same elder, equally as yet unborn, He could have rejected; concerning whom, on this account, the prophetic testimony is recorded, although declared long subsequently, ‘Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,’” [Mal. i. 2, 3. Cf. Rom. ix. 13] I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: “God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,--to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.” I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I as yet found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, “A remnant are saved according to the election of grace.” [Rom. xi. 5] Which assuredly is not grace if any merits precede it; lest what is now given, not according to grace, but according to debt, be rather paid to merits than freely given. And what I next subjoined: “For the same apostle says, ‘The same God which worketh all in all;’ [1 Cor. xii. 6] but it was never said, God believeth all in all;” and then added, “Therefore what we believe is our own, but what good thing we do is of Him who giveth the Holy Spirit to them that believe:” I certainly could not have said, had I already known that faith itself also is found among those gifts of God which are given by the same Spirit. [continued]
ReplyDeletecontinued
ReplyDeleteBoth, therefore, are ours on account of the choice of the will, and yet both are given by the spirit of faith and love. For faith is not alone but as it is written, “Love with faith, from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” [Eph. vi. 23] And what I said a little after, “For it is ours to believe and to will, but it is His to give to those who believe and will, the power of doing good works through the Holy Spirit, by whom love is shed abroad in our hearts,”--is true indeed; but by the same rule both are also God’s, because God prepares the will; and both are ours too, because they are only brought about with our good wills. And thus what I subsequently said also: “Because we are not able to will unless we are called; and when, after our calling, we would will, our willing is not sufficiently nor our running, unless God gives strength to us that run, and leads us whither He calls us;” and thereupon added: “It is plain, therefore, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy, that we do good works”--this is absolutely most true. But I discovered little concerning the calling itself, which is according to God’s purpose; for not such is the calling of all that are called, but only of the elect. Therefore what I said a little afterwards: “For as in those whom God elects it is not works but faith that begins the merit so as to do good works by the gift of God, so in those whom He condemns, unbelief and impiety begin the merit of punishment, so that even by way of punishment itself they do evil works”--I spoke most truly. But that even the merit itself of faith was God’s gift, I neither thought of inquiring into, nor did I say. And in another place I say: “For whom He has mercy upon, He makes to do good works, and whom He hardeneth He leaves to do evil works; but that mercy is bestowed upon the preceding merit of faith, and that hardening is applied to preceding iniquity.” And this indeed is true; but it should further have been asked, whether even the merit of faith does not come from God’s mercy,--that is, whether that mercy is manifested in man only because he is a believer, or whether it is also manifested that he may be a believer? For we read in the apostle’s words: “I obtained mercy to be a believer.” [1 Cor. vii. 25] He does not say, “Because I was a believer.” Therefore although it is given to the believer, yet it has been given also that he may be a believer. Therefore also, in another place in the same book I most truly said: “Because, if it is of God’s mercy, and not of works, that we are even called that we may believe and it is granted to us who believe to do good works, that mercy must not be grudged to the heathen;”--although I there discoursed less carefully about that calling which is given according to God’s purpose.’ [Retractations, Book i. ch. 23, Nos. 3, 4]” (On the Predestination of the Saints, Chapter 7)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.ii.vii.html
Augustine: “This I know, that no one has been able to dispute, except erroneously, against that predestination which I am maintaining in accordance with the Holy Scriptures. Yet I think that they who ask for the opinions of commentators on this matter ought to be satisfied with men so holy and so laudably celebrated everywhere in the faith and Christian doctrine as Cyprian and Ambrose, of whom I have given such clear testimonies; and that for both doctrines—that is, that they should both believe absolutely and preach everywhere that the grace of God is gratuitous, as we must believe and declare it to be; and that they should not think that preaching opposed to the preaching whereby we exhort the indolent or rebuke the evil; because these celebrated men also, although they were preaching God’s grace in such a manner as that one of them said, ‘That we must boast in nothing, because nothing is our own;’ and the other, ‘Our heart and our thoughts are not in our own power;’ yet ceased not to exhort and rebuke, in order that the divine commands might be obeyed. Neither were they afraid of its being said to them, ‘Why do you exhort us, and why do you rebuke us, if no good thing that we have is from us, and if our hearts are not in our own power?’ These holy men could by no means fear that such things should be said to them, since they were of the mind to understand that it is given to very few to receive the teaching of salvation through God Himself, or through the angels of heaven, without any human preaching to them; but that it is given to many to believe in God through human agency. Yet, in whatever manner the word of God is spoken to man, beyond a doubt for man to hear it in such a way as to obey it, is God’s gift.” (A Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance, Chapter 48: Practice of Cyprian and Ambrose)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xxi.iii.l.html
Augustine writes: “Wherefore, the above-mentioned most excellent commentators on the divine declarations both preached the true grace of God as it ought to be preached,—that is, as a grace preceded by no human deservings,—and urgently exhorted to the doing of the divine commandments, that they who might have the gift of obedience should hear what commands they ought to obey. For if any merits of ours precede grace, certainly it is the merit of some deed, or word, or thought, wherein also is understood a good will itself. But he very briefly summed up the kinds of all deservings who said, ‘We must glory in nothing, because nothing is our own.’ And he who says, ‘Our heart and our thoughts are not in our own power,’ did not pass over acts and words also, for there is no act or word of man which does not proceed from the heart and the thought. But what more could that most glorious martyr and most luminous doctor Cyprian say concerning this matter, than when he impressed upon us that it behoves us to pray, in the Lord’s Prayer, even for the adversaries of the Christian faith, showing what he thought of the beginning of the faith, that it also is God’s gift, and pointing out that the Church of Christ prays daily for perseverance unto the end, because none but God gives that perseverance to those who have persevered? Moreover, the blessed Ambrose, when he was expounding the passage where the Evangelist Luke says, ‘It seemed good to me also,’ says, ‘What he declares to have seemed good to himself cannot have seemed good to him alone. For not alone by human will did it seem good, but as it pleased Him who speaks in me, Christ, who effects that that which is good may also seem good to us: for whom He has mercy on He also calls. And therefore he who follows Christ may answer, when he is asked why he wished to become a Christian, “It seemed good to me also.” And when he says this, he does not deny that it seemed good to God; for the will of men is prepared by God. For it is God’s grace that God should be honoured by the saint.’ Moreover, in the same work,—that is, in the exposition of the same Gospel, when he had come to that place where the Samaritans would not receive the Lord when His face was as going to Jerusalem,—he says, ‘Learn at the same time that He would not be received by those who were not converted in simpleness of mind. For if He had been willing, He would have made them devout who were undevout. And why they would not receive Him, the evangelist himself mentioned, saying, “Because His face was as of one going towards Jerusalem.” But the disciples earnestly desired to be received into Samaria. But God calls those whom He makes worthy, and makes religious whom He will.’ What more evident, what more manifest do we ask from commentators on God’s word, if we are pleased to hear from them what is clear in the Scriptures?” (A Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance, Chapter 49: Further References to Cyprian and Ambrose)
ReplyDeleteFrom the aforementioned quotes, the citations of Cyprian and Ambrose were mainly concerning the necessity of grace, which Augustine then developed further, but does not credit anyone in particular for the development of his determinism. I'm compelled to ask why.
ReplyDeleteAugustine writes: “This is the manifest and assured predestination of the saints, which subsequently necessity compelled me more carefully and laboriously to defend when I was already disputing against the Pelagians. For I learnt that each special heresy introduced its own peculiar questions into the Church—against which the sacred Scripture might be more carefully defended than if no such necessity compelled their defence. And what compelled those passages of Scripture in which predestination is commended to be defended more abundantly and clearly by that labour of mine, than the fact that the Pelagians say that God’s grace is given according to our merits; for what else is this than an absolute denial of grace?” (A Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance, Chapter 53: Augustin’s “Confessions”)
Richard Coords wrote:
ReplyDelete"I merely speculate it, based upon Augustine’s commentary in applying Egyptian gold."
As I documented earlier, Augustine applies the Egyptian gold principle to knowledge in general. Since the examples he gives in the passages I cited are sufficient to explain what he meant, why should we accept your speculation that he was also referring to the sort of borrowing from Gnosticism that you have in mind?
You write:
"Ambrose loved Platonic philosophy and was also known for applying Stoic principles in his sermons. At the same time, Ambrose did not develop the predestinarian principles of Augustine, and thus there was little to quote from him, in order to truly claim him for support."
Then why did you say that Ambrose didn't go on record? Apparently, you're arguing that Ambrose did go on record, but that what he said only gives little support to Augustine and that Ambrose didn't develop the implications of his beliefs as far as Augustine did. Given Augustine's close relationship with Ambrose, I think a development of Ambrose's theology would be a better (partial) explanation for Augustine's conclusions than his having borrowed from Gnosticism and having lied about it.
You write:
"Was it strictly from the pages of Scripture?"
Even if not, it could come from a wide variety of sources other than Gnosticism. As I've said before, many individuals and groups through the centuries have held a high view of predestination. Such issues were commonly discussed among philosophers, in Judaism, etc.
You write:
"Augustine claims that it was the writing of Cyprian, but Cyprian’s comment was inconclusive in support of Augustinian predestination. I’m convinced that Augustine developed his doctrine from someone, but is not telling us."
Telling us that you're convinced isn't enough to convince us. And "someone" is vague.
The role of Cyprian could take multiple forms, as I explained earlier. Even if Cyprian didn't express Augustine's conclusions, those conclusions might have been logical implications of what Cyprian did say. Or if Augustine misinterpreted Cyprian or was illogical in developing Cyprian's thoughts, we would still have to distinguish between an honest mistake and a lie. The fact that you don't see sufficient precedent for Augustine's beliefs in Cyprian doesn't prove that Augustine was lying and derived his conclusions from Gnosticism instead.
You've cited passages in which Augustine appeals to Cyprian and Ambrose for justification of some of his beliefs, but I don't know why you've chosen those passages. For example, Philip Schaff wrote:
ReplyDelete"Comp. the opinions of the pre-Augustinian fathers respecting grace, predestination, and the extent of redemption, as given in detail in Wiggers, i. p. 440 ff. He says, p. 448: 'In reference to predestination, the fathers before Augustine were entirely at variance with him, and in agreement with Pelagius. They, like Pelagius, founded predestination upon prescience, upon the fore-knowledge of God, as to who would make themselves worthy or unworthy of salvation. They assume, therefore, not the unconditional predestination of Augustine, but the conditional predestination of the Pelagians. The Massilians had, therefore, a full right to affirm (Aug. Ep. 225), that Augustine’s doctrine of predestination was opposed to the opinions of the fathers and the sense of the church (ecclesiastico sensui), and that no ecclesiastical author had ever yet explained the Epistle to the Romans as Augustine did, or in such a way as to derive from it a grace that had no respect to the merits of the elect. And it was only by a doubtful inference (De dono pers. 19) that Augustine endeavored to prove that Cyprian, Ambrose, and Gregory Nazianzen had known and received his view of predestination, by appealing to the agreement between this doctrine and their theory of grace.'" (note 1856 here)
As I said earlier, I've seen some scholars refer to historical precedent for Augustine's view within mainstream Christianity prior to Augustine's time. I don't know how accurate Schaff and Wiggers are on that point. But my point here is that Schaff and Wiggers are citing different passages in Augustine than you are, and they're adding Gregory Nazianzen to the list. I think there are more passages in Augustine that are relevant to this subject than you've cited.
You write:
"What verse in Acts 17 do you feel is most closely related to what Augustine had asserted, in terms of his Egyptian gold analogy?"
Augustine himself cited scripture to justify his principle, as I documented. He cited Acts 7:22 as an illustration. He also comments that the sort of borrowing he's referring to is commonly practiced, including among Christians. He names Cyprian, Lactantius, Victorinus, etc. Nothing in the passage implies any sort of improper borrowing, such as the borrowing from Gnosticism that you're speculating about.
I don't know why you're asking about Acts 17 while ignoring the many other examples I gave. Surely you realize by now that the borrowing in question is common and is practiced regularly by Christians. Since Augustine cited Acts 7:22 as an example, then it seems that we could cite Acts 17:28 as well. Paul was familiar with what non-Christian poets had written, he thought some of their beliefs were true, and he appealed to what they had written in the process of reasoning with his audience in the Areopagus.
You write:
ReplyDelete"But why didn’t Augustine quote them, as he explicitly quoted Cyprian and Ambrose, primarily concerning the necessity of grace?"
He lived in an age without the printing press, computers, and other advantages that we have. He was in a position to know about popular beliefs and some unpopular beliefs, but he wouldn't have had an exhaustive knowledge of what all Christians had believed throughout all church history prior to his time. To use an example I cited earlier, those who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary in the fourth century or beyond may have been knowledgeable of what many church leaders had believed about the subject in previous generations, yet have been ignorant of what other individuals believed. Jerome, in his defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary, seems to be ignorant of some of the evidence against the doctrine, such as what Irenaeus and some other earlier sources wrote pertaining to the subject. I wouldn't expect Augustine to know of every historical precedent for his beliefs. His ignorance of a precedent would have some significance, but not as much significance as you're suggesting.
You write:
"Thus, Compatibilists might agree with Irenaeus, thus deflating my contention that Irenaeus was refuting determinism. However, how many Compatibilists ever appealed to Matthew 23:37?"
It would depend on the context. But Calvinists wouldn't have to agree with every detail of Irenaeus' case, such as how he uses every passage of scripture he cites, in order for their beliefs to be different from those of the individuals Irenaeus was interacting with. I doubt that you would agree with every detail of Irenaeus' argument.
You write:
"From the aforementioned quotes, the citations of Cyprian and Ambrose were mainly concerning the necessity of grace, which Augustine then developed further, but does not credit anyone in particular for the development of his determinism. I'm compelled to ask why."
If it was a development in his own mind, a development that he thought to be Biblical, why would you expect him to cite any post-Biblical source? There are so many possibilities here other than borrowing from Gnosticism. Again, I think you ought to abandon that portion of your argument, until you have better evidence for it. But from what little I've seen on this subject so far, from Augustine and from modern scholarship and other sources, I doubt that your theory about borrowing from Gnostics will ever be warranted.
Hello Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: “As I documented earlier, Augustine applies the Egyptian gold principle to knowledge in general. Since the examples he gives in the passages I cited are sufficient to explain what he meant, why should we accept your speculation that he was also referring to the sort of borrowing from Gnosticism that you have in mind?”
“Knowledge in general”? Augustine states: “Moreover, if those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said aught that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it.” How does Augustine know that it is true?
Again, I must ask, how does Augustine know that they are “truths”? How does he know whether he is actually incorporating pagan falsehood into Christianity, and thus the same thing with respect to the determinism of the Gnostics? I think that it’s a very fair question to ask. In terms of the apostle Paul, at Acts 17:28, he says, “For in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His offspring.’” (Acts 7:28) That’s a far cry from Augustine applying pagan Gnostic, Stoic and Platonic “truths” to Christianity, in which they pagans were otherwise in “unlawful possession of.” Augustine states: “Christians…ought to take away from them [again, what they were in unlawful possession of], and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel.” Also, what Paul stated was extremely benign. Moreover, the apostle Paul is authoritative, whereas Augustine is not. So there are few problems there.
You wrote: “Apparently, you're arguing that Ambrose did go on record, but that what he said only gives little support to Augustine and that Ambrose didn't develop the implications of his beliefs as far as Augustine did. Given Augustine's close relationship with Ambrose, I think a development of Ambrose's theology would be a better (partial) explanation for Augustine's conclusions than his having borrowed from Gnosticism and having lied about it.”
No. Ambrose did “not” go on record as to what became “Augustinian predestination.” The most that you could say is that Augustine developed Cyprian and Ambrose’s views on the necessity of grace, and there is no logical necessity by which these naturally dovetail with Augustinian predestination. There is simply is no traceable path of theology from Ambrose to Augustinian predestination. Augustine got his theology from somewhere, and he’s not telling us.
You wrote: “Even if not, it could come from a wide variety of sources other than Gnosticism. As I've said before, many individuals and groups through the centuries have held a high view of predestination. Such issues were commonly discussed among philosophers, in Judaism, etc.”
And Augustine just so happened…to have been a former deterministic Gnostic, and many of the Platonists held to determinism. It was a well-known, and hotly debated topic in Augustine’s day. Cicero wrote a famous book on free will and determinism. The Stoics were known for their determinism. The Manichaeans adapted Platonism with Christianity. Is it a smoking gun? Is the evidence merely circumstantial? Let the reader decide for himself.
You wrote: “The role of Cyprian could take multiple forms, as I explained earlier. Even if Cyprian didn't express Augustine's conclusions, those conclusions might have been logical implications of what Cyprian did say.”
ReplyDeleteAugustine would have certainly wanted for you to think that. I have to agree with Schaff: “It was only by a doubtful inference…that Augustine endeavored to prove that Cyprian, Ambrose and Gregory Nazianzen had known and received his view of predestination….”
If you find something that would necessarily establish a logical inevitability, I’d like to see it. BTW, I didn’t mention Gregory Nazianzen, only because his link seemed the weakest, and not even worth bringing up. What really struck me as odd, is that suddenly Augustine had so many of the now famous, modern C proof-texts, and we know that the Gnostics applied Scripture in their arguments. That’s way I was like, “There has to be a connection here,” but Augustine is not telling us.
You wrote: “I wouldn’t expect Augustine to know of every historical precedent for his beliefs. His ignorance of a precedent would have some significance, but not as much significance as you're suggesting.”
But if there was a Christian that he had gotten his proof-texts from, he would have quoted them? So who did he get it from? That ties into your next point:
You wrote: “If it was a development in his own mind, a development that he thought to be Biblical, why would you expect him to cite any post-Biblical source? There are so many possibilities here other than borrowing from Gnosticism. Again, I think you ought to abandon that portion of your argument, until you have better evidence for it. But from what little I've seen on this subject so far, from Augustine and from modern scholarship and other sources, I doubt that your theory about borrowing from Gnostics will ever be warranted.”
So you believe that there is a chance that Augustine simply opened up the Scriptures and whalaa, out popped Augustinian predestination, without any “helps”? He spent nearly 10 years under deterministic teachings? He was extremely well-studied in the free-will / determinism debates, including Platonist philosophy, Stoic philosophy and Cicero’s debate with the Stoics over free will and determinism. Every Calvinist that I’ve ever known was carefully shown all of the famous proof-texts. Suddenly Augustine goes from affirming free will & prescience to determinism, and out pops all of the famous proof-texts that we see today? Additionally, we’ve seen in the past, when Augustine had trouble with the credibility of the Old Testament, as the Manichaeans taught him to discredit it, because it depicts a mutable God, and Ambrose convinced him that he could just allegorize the offending passages. In other words, it wasn’t a deep search of Scripture that led him to the allegorizing approach. He was convinced of it by Ambrose. There is a pattern here.
I gathered a couple of quotes that I'd like to share:
ReplyDeleteRobert M. Kingdon: “In the Christian tradition, the nearest approaches to determinism are to be found more in ideas about man’s ultimate destiny than in ideas about the course of man’s life in this world. They are to be found particularly within systems derived from the thought of Saint Augustine of Hippo, the greatest early theologian of the Western Church. They have been derived most commonly from Augustine’s doctrines of original sin and predestination. These doctrines Augustine developed from his reading of the Pauline epistles in the Christian New Testament. In developing his interpretation, Augustine (354-430) was almost certainly influenced by the preaching of Saint Ambrose (ca. 340-97), and other prominent earlier Western theologians. He departed from the views of influential Eastern theologians such as Saint John Chrysostom. But he reacted most explicitly against the teachings of his contemporaries, the British monk Pelagius and his associates.” (Determinism in Theology: Predestination)
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-03
Nevertheless, I fail to see a logical inevitability from Ambrose & Cyprian's take on grace, to Augustinian predestination. Augustine certainly asserted a connected, but the quotes don't readily warrant such a conclusion.
Sparks Notes: “Augustine’s lasting influence lies largely in his success in combining this Neoplatonic worldview with the Christian one. In Augustine’s hybrid system, the idea that all creation is good in as much as it exists means that all creation, no matter how nasty or ugly, has its existence only in God. Because of this, all creation seeks to return to God, who is the purest and most perfected form of the compromised Being enjoyed by individual things. Again, then, any story of an individual’s return to God is also a statement about the relationship between God and the created universe: namely, everything tends back toward God, its constant source and ideal form.” (Spark Notes)
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/confessionsaug/analysis.html
This is what I mean by Augustine borrowing from what he calls sources with "unlawful possession" of divine truths. I'm just not naive enough to think that Augustine suddenly had all of these proof-texts, without outside influence, especially considering his deterministic background, and his method of adapting what he feels are truths from questionable sources.
I've already showed this quote, but I'd like to reiterate it:
ReplyDeleteJacob Arminius stated concerning Pelagianism and Manichaeism: “For as, when a departure is once made from the truth, the descent towards falsehood becomes more and more rapid; so, by receding from falsehood, it is possible for men to arrive at truth, which is often accustomed to stand as the mean between two extremes of falsehood. Such indeed is the state of the matter in Pelagianism and Manicheism. If any man can enter on a middle way between these two heresies, he will be a true Catholic, neither inflicting an injury on Grace, as the Pelagians do, nor on Free Will as do the Manichees.” (The Works Of James Arminius, Vol I Section 3, Article XXX[(X])
And Augustine just so happened to have been a former Manichaean, which sect had, according to Arminius, injured free will. Where did Augustine get his deterministic views? He couldn't cite an explicit reference to a single patristic, and yet there is the giant red flag, waving in front of us.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteCheck this out:
http://www.dissertation.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581120176
Richard Coords,
ReplyDeleteYou're still ignoring much of what I said earlier, and you're still making a lot of assertions that you don't justify. You mention pre-Gnostic sources at one point, Gnostics at another point, and Ambrose somewhere else. You go from one to another, then back to another, as if they aren't significantly different from each other. How you supposedly know how all of these sources influenced Augustine is never explained. How would you know, for example, whether Augustine was being influenced by Gnostics or, instead, by concepts of predestination and free will that were circulating in philosophical circles (and in Judaism) before Gnosticism arose? How would you know which came first in influencing Augustine?
Earlier, you said that "I don’t know exactly what variety of determinism that the Gnostics taught...Augustine did teach determinism (though how closely it relates to gnostic determinism is unknown)". You acknowledge your ignorance at some points, but then speculate at other points as though you aren't so ignorant. You refer to Augustine's "sudden" theology that "popped out", suggesting that he would have to have depended on the Gnostics for such a theological system, but you don't make much of an effort to explain why or to consider the alternatives.
You still haven't addressed my earlier examples of borrowing that Arminians commonly accept, namely the Kalam cosmological argument and Molinism. Just as the Kalam argument and Molinism can be accepted for their purported logical merits and consistency with scripture, despite their origins in Islam and Roman Catholicism, the same would be true of Augustine's concepts of predestination and free will. Augustine could first hear of such concepts from Gnosticism, then hear of some arguments for those beliefs from pre-Gnostic philosophy, then think through the Biblical evidence. Or he could first be influenced by philosophical sources outside of Gnosticism, then be influenced by Biblical theology, then by Gnosticism, then return to a consideration of the Biblical data, followed by a reconsideration of the logical merits of the arguments. Etc. As I said before, there are so many possibilities here. The concept that Augustine "suddenly" had a theological system that "popped out" of Gnosticism doesn't logically follow from anything you've said. And if Gnosticism was just one influence among others, much as somebody like William Lane Craig can be influenced by a combination of Christian and non-Christian sources (as we all are), then what's the significance?
Did you see the link to the book?
ReplyDeleteRichard Coords wrote:
ReplyDelete“Did you see the link to the book?”
You linked to an abstract of a doctoral dissertation about Augustine’s interaction with some Manichaean concepts. The abstract doesn’t suggest that the dissertation makes the same argument you’re making. It refers to Augustine agreeing with Manichaeism on some points and disagreeing on other points. Whether Augustine was influenced by Manichaeism, in the sense of agreeing with it on some points and interacting with it, isn’t the issue under dispute in our discussion. As I explained earlier, all of us are influenced by a wide variety of sources, Christian and non-Christian. All of us interact with belief systems we disagree with and are influenced by them in some sense. I’ve given some examples, including examples involving Arminians. As I said earlier, many individuals and groups have held some sort of high view of predestination. Just as Augustine would have some common ground with a Manichaean or Gnostic who held a high view of predestination, he’d also have some common ground with a Stoic, Jew, or Christian who held such a view. You have common ground on some issues with Muslims, atheists, Jews, etc. And all of us change our beliefs and make adjustments to our arguments in the process of interacting with other people. We’re all influenced to some extent by other people and groups, including non-Christian people and groups.
During the course of this discussion, you’ve cited everything from Wikipedia to Blastus to Florinus to the Second Helvetic Confession to Jacob Arminius. You often don’t explain the alleged relevance of what you’re citing, and when its relevance is discussed, it often turns out to be of little significance. I doubt that you’ve read the doctoral dissertation that’s summarized on the page you linked. Rather, you probably found it by doing an online search for sources that claim some sort of Manichaean influence on Augustine. Your citation of this doctoral dissertation seems little different than your appeal to Wikipedia’s vague reference to what some scholars believe about Manichaean influence. What sort of influence is in view? If such influence occurred, what does it imply? Why do you agree with those scholars Wikipedia refers to (and the doctoral dissertation you referenced) rather than the scholars who disagree with them?
This discussion has been going on for a long time now, and you still haven’t defined what the Gnostics allegedly believed on the subject in question, what Augustine believed, how you supposedly know that Augustine borrowed from the Gnostics, and what significance that borrowing allegedly has. By your own admission, you don’t even know just what view the Gnostics held and how Augustine’s view compares. As I said earlier, the Gnostics held a wide variety of beliefs, and one of the sources you cited by name, Florinus, was specifically criticized for the uniqueness of his beliefs. How would you go about arriving at one view of predestination that was held by the Gnostics in general and one set of “proof texts”, as you put it, that the Gnostics in general used? How do you know what texts of the Bible Augustine used? Have you gone through all of his relevant writings (including the ones not yet translated into English) and gathered together every text of scripture he used? And you’ve found relevant parallels in Gnosticism? Or you’ve consulted a scholar who has done so? You keep making claims that you don’t substantiate, accompanied by the citation of sources that are irrelevant or only partially agree with you (Wikipedia, the Second Helvetic Confession, Jacob Arminius, etc.). You haven’t even adequately defined your own argument, much less substantiated it.