The E.O. view is very similar to the Arminian one.Yes, we know. Another reason Arminians should reconsider their theological position.
LFW is free will.Says who? Other than demonstrating that he can capitalize and press the "Enter" key, JNorm has done nothing to make his case. His original complaint was that Calvinists do not affirm "free will." No, we don't affirm LFW. So, he resorts to truth by definition. That's very mature.
LFW = Free WILL
and yes, I have read the WFC.Aside from showing us he's not the best speller, JNorm has done nothing to demonstrate the case. I look forward to his take on Frankfurt experiments in relationship to freedom and responsibility.
Hard Determinism and Combatabilsim is not free will.
God forcing an "internal" desire on someone is not free will....especially if that "internal" desire is irresistible.Aside from misrepresenting the opposing position by resorting to caricaturing it, JNorm has done nothing to demonstrate that Calvinists affirm forces an internal desire on someone.
Does the pottery have a right to complain to the Potter? According to JNorm, the answer must be "yes."
LFW reduces to the notion that our choices have no causes. This is irrational. It is therefore not free will in the ordinarily understood sense.
To quote Turretinfan:
Taking a page or two from Edwards, we can simply point out that a will that acts contingently (a "libertarian" will) cannot be a will that is determined. Yet, wills in Scripture are determined, as are choices. A will whose acts are not determined by the person whose will it is, is a monstrosity that would destroy our intuition of what is required for moral responsibility. Finally, we can see evidence in Sociology, Psychology, and the like that people's wills are determined. The advertising industry is built on the fact that people are largely predictable in their behavior. Scripture confirms that man's acts are determined - comparing man's acts to the fruit of a tree.I'm sure Manata and Pike will have a field day with you, but even so, I'll ask you some questions:
Furthermore, Scripture is clear that creation is dependent for everything - even its very existence - on the Creator. Accordingly, to assert that something could come to be without its ultimate source being God is contrary to Scripture. In Him we live and move and have our being, as even the pagans recognized.
1. If Agent A's desires are sufficient causes for their actions, is this "free will?" If not, why not? If so, then why the objection to compatibilism?
2. Where, pray tell, does Scripture teach LFW?
3. If the Bible doesn't teach it, then from whence does it come?
4. If it doesn't teach it, why should we believe in it?
5. You've asserted the Fathers all believed in LFW. (Turretinfan and I both take exception to that assertion, but I'll concede that for the purposes of this question). If it isn't an action theory not taught by Scripture, then where did they get that idea, assuming that they all believed in it?
"Furthermore, Scripture is clear that creation is dependent for everything - even its very existence - on the Creator. Accordingly, to assert that something could come to be without its ultimate source being God is contrary to Scripture. In Him we live and move and have our being, as even the pagans recognized."
ReplyDeleteI've thought about this too. Doesn't the LFW position commit the [Arminian, Orthodox, etc.] to believing that human creatures are 'a se'?
If consistently followed out, I would say, "Yep-per." We have not one, but 2 first causes.
ReplyDeleteYou are misrepresenting.
ReplyDeleteI know very well that "some" post Augustinian western fathers and western christians believed in what I call "christian determinism".
If christian determinism goes back to Augustine(in his later years) then one should conclude that at least some post Augustinian fathers believed in "christian determinism".
I stopped my study of Saint Augustine in regards to "grace & free will" a few months ago. I will pick it back up after I'm finished with another project.
The pre-Augustinian church fathers both east and west believed in LFW.
So same is true for alot of Augustine's enemies.....like Saint John Cassian and Saint Vincent of Lerenz. Not to mention many others in the western church.
The Eastern Church wasn't really bothered by this issue. This is why to this very day we still believe in free-will.
If you are going to quote a father in favor of a Calvinistic belief then you will have to make sure that such a father doesn't have an Arminian view.
Calvinists are not the only ones that believe man is depraved......the question is....how does one understand that?
Alot of the Fathers you quoted would be more in line with Arminianism in regards to those topics.
Also just because creation is dependant for everything....including its existence from the Creator doesn't mean that everything is "irresistibly" caused by the Creator.
This is the difference.
" In Him we live and move and have our being,"
That quote from Acts chapter 17 proves Resistible grace.
We can't self-move if grace wasn't resistible.
The fact that "somethings" of the Prime mover are resistible proves Arminianism.
Now watch you twist this to mean "all things from the Prime mover" are resistible.
JNORM888
Taken from the Arminian Catechism:
ReplyDeleteQ. 1. Who can resist his will?
A. 1. Man can.
"That quote from Acts chapter 17 proves Resistible grace."
ReplyDeleteWell, you never understood Calvinism, and you still don't.
Calvinism's "Irresistible Grace" refers only to the Effectual Calling (i.e. regeneration in Reformed Theology).
Secondly, Acts 17 shows that every created thing depends for its existence upon God. God is self-existent while creatures are not. If creatures can create their own willpower apart from their Sustainer's power, then their willpower is self-existent as well.
As Turretinfan was quoted in the post:
Furthermore, Scripture is clear that creation is dependent for everything - even its very existence - on the Creator. Accordingly, to assert that something could come to be without its ultimate source being God is contrary to Scripture. In Him we live and move and have our being, as even the pagans recognized.
I know very well that "some" post Augustinian western fathers and western christians believed in what I call "christian determinism".
ReplyDeleteI never said otherwise.
I never mentioned pre and post-Augustinians.
The pre-Augustinian church fathers both east and west believed in LF
That's not an argument. It's an assertion. TF and I take issue with that, and I specifically stated that for our purposes in this thread, I'll concede it.
So, who is misrepresenting whom?
The Eastern Church wasn't really bothered by this issue. This is why to this very day we still believe in free-will.
And all I'm asking for is for you to tell us where that comes from.
Alot of the Fathers you quoted would be more in line with Arminianism in regards to those topics.
That would be patently anachronistic.
That quote from Acts chapter 17 proves Resistible grace
Irresistible grace in Calvinism is equivalent to regeneration. So, you'll have to take that quote and develop it into an argument.
Where in Scripture do we find LFW taught? This is a very simple question.
We can't self-move if grace wasn't resistible.
Calvinism affirms secondary causation. It also affirms a doctrine of permission.
Try again.
christian determinism"
ReplyDeleteThis is a good place to make a larger point.
Advocates of theological indeterminism get hung up on God's decrees as if that constitutes "Christian determinism."
But that's not what we mean. Sure, we have a doctrine of decrees, but what we *also* mean by "determinism" refers to human agency qua agency.
Do we act according to our desires or not? Eg. do our desires serve as sufficient causes/reasons to determine our choices when the options are presented?
Or
Are our choices uncaused?
What does the Bible say, JNORM?
Does God act according to his desires? Is God's actions therefore deterministic?
ReplyDeleteYou're positing ye old Euthyphro Dilemma I take it, Orthodox.
ReplyDeleteWe've answered that more than once.
Is it your position that God can do either good or evil?
God can choose from any number of goods, but He cannot choose evil. When folks say He has "libertarian" freedom, they are saying His choices are not constrained, but they are still saying His acts are consistent with His nature.
God always makes choices according to His holy nature. All members of the Trinity have acted in sinless perfection. God cannot even desire an unholy act, nor can He lie, for He would no longer be God if He did. In fact His choices are so wrapped up in His nature and essence that He could not do otherwise. But God’s freedom is the real freedom defined by the Bible -- a freedom from sin, not a freedom to do otherwise. God is free in the compatibilist sense in that He always acts according to His nature, never against it. God does not have ‘freedom’ to do what is contrary to His nature, so He is not free in the libertarian sense (in fact no one is). (John Hendryx)
If God had LFW, He would also have the ability to do either good or/and evil, to act in a manner that is not consistent with His nature. If you think otherwise, that's an ad hoc restriction on LFW.
I'll ask this again, where does Scripture teach LFW? I can find plenty of Scriptures that show that our desires are sufficient causes that lie behind our actions, that show, explicitly, that we act in accordance with our natures, which is all our theory of creaturely agent causation really entails.
I'll repeat myself, when we speak of "determinism" in relation to the creature, we are not talking simply about God's decrees. We're talking about agency qua agency. People acting in accordance with their desires.
Except that Romans 1 teaches that even unbelievers can do good, apparently then in accordance to their nature.
ReplyDeleteSo there goes original sin and total depravity.
You said:
ReplyDelete"That's not an argument. It's an assertion. TF and I take issue with that, and I specifically stated that for our purposes in this thread, I'll concede it.
So, who is misrepresenting whom?"
You shouldn't take issue with it. It's hard to miss what they say about the issue of free will since they talk about it alot.
If you and Turrentinfan speculate that they believed in "compatibilism/soft determinism"
Then you both are standing on sinking sand. Such a view can not be defended successfully.
And to call it an assertion that they believed in LFW is evidence that you haven't really read them.
It's hard to miss what they have to say about the freedom of the will. They didn't have the Augustinian doctrine that free will was lost when Adam fell. They believed in the idea that "responsibility implies ability". They believed in the idea that moral agents are "self-determinators", and they believed in the idea of "potentiality".
When you add that with their beliefs of "volitional freedom" & "the moral power to resist both internal and external influences"
Then you have LFW. I can even say the same for Saint Augustine in his early to mid christian years. He was the sameway until he changed.
Only those who don't read the fathers will call it an assertion.
Also to the person that thought I was being "anachronistic" I would like to say.......that it is more likely that yourside is doing an "anachronistic" reading in regards to this issue.
Why? Because you are reading a 16nth to 20nth century mindset & theology into the 2nd to 4th century christians.
I don't know where you go to church at, but if your place of fellowship (after service is over) sells mostly Calvinistic books next to the coffee and donuts then you are most definitely reading a later & foreign theology into them. They were not "soft deterministic" Calvinists.
We on the otherhand actualy read fresh english translations of 4th century Church Fathers. We actually sell many of their translated works at our churches.
Our Theology is mostly a 4th & 7th century Theology. So if you want to be accurate in regards to the issue of "anachronism" you will have to say that we are anachronistically reading a 4th to 7th century theology into the 2nd to 4th centuries. but since we read alot of 4th century works I doubt if we are really misrepresenting.
Also someone else thought that the early christians were all over the place so why listen to them? The truth is they were not all over the place. and most of the differences have a context. Just like in Protestantism one can trace "particuliar" beliefs to a single individual or a group of individuals.......the same is true when it comes to most of the differences among the early christians of the first 1,000 years.
This is why many are able to point certain beliefs to a single individual like Saint Augustine.
In regards to the issue of Tertullian advocating that parents should wait to Baptize their infants had nothing to do with the modern American Anabaptist and Baptist understanding of why one shouldn't baptize their infants. Tertullian just like everyone else in the Church believed in Baptismal regeneration.
Baptismal regeneration simply means that one is united with Christ through Baptism. And when one is united with Christ through Baptism their past sins are forgiven.
Why? Because the blood of Jesus is in the water of Baptism. To say that the early christians disagreed over the issue of Baptismal regeneration in the sense of some not believing in "Baptismal regeneration" is false.
Yes there was a time(in the late 3rd to mid 4th centuries) in which it was popular for parents to waite to Baptize their kids. But it had nothing to do with the reason why "some of you" refuse to baptize your kids.
It had everything to do with waiting to sin first before getting ones sins cleaned through Baptism. Sense water Baptism cleanses all past sins.
I shouldn't have to be the history teacher! You all should do your own homework. but then again.......I doubt if some on here care about "accurately" talking about such matters.
Christian Baptism as being the means of cleansing all past sins as well as uniting us to Christ go hand in hand. You can't splinter them. They are different aspects of the same doctrine.
JNORM888
You shouldn't take issue with it. It's hard to miss what they say about the issue of free will since they talk about it alot.
ReplyDelete.
So you say, but have yet to demonstrate.
And what they said is 100 percent irrelveant to this topic, since I specifically stated, now for the 3rd time, I am willing to concede this.
They believed in the idea that moral agents are "self-determinators", and they believed in the idea of "potentiality".
And none of these are problems for Calvinism. It begs the question to state that since we affirm that our natures determine our actions that our actions are not "self-determined." Of course they are,since our natures are are own.
When you add that with their beliefs of "volitional freedom" & "the moral power to resist both internal and external influences"
Calvinism does not deny that men can resist external influences.
It's a testament to your inability to engage Calvinism that you keep misrepresenting it.
Why? Because you are reading a 16nth to 20nth century mindset & theology into the 2nd to 4th century christians.
And you're not. Okay.
Our Theology is mostly a 4th & 7th century Theology...blah, blah, blah
This is irrelevant to the questions I've asked you here - which you have yet to answer.
1. If Agent A's desires are sufficient causes for their actions, is this "free will?" If not, why not? If so, then why the objection to compatibilism?
2. Where, pray tell, does Scripture teach LFW?
3. If the Bible doesn't teach it, then from whence does it come?
4. If it doesn't teach it, why should we believe in it?
5. You've asserted the Fathers all believed in LFW. (Turretinfan and I both take exception to that assertion, but I'll concede that for the purposes of this question). If it isn't an action theory not taught by Scripture, then where did they get that idea, assuming that they all believed in it?
I shouldn't have to be the history teacher! You all should do your own homework. but then again.......I doubt if some on here care about "accurately" talking about such matters.
Because you are a throroughly incompetent teacher. It is a matter of historical fact that not every ECF affirmed baptismal regeneration. You may want to take a graduate level Patristics class sometime. I have. They linked it to the remission of sins, but not all of them linked it to "regeneration" in an instrumental sense.
1. A case can be made that the ECFs adopted the sacramental language of the NT Scriptures and didn't teach baptismal regeneration per se. As Lane has pointed out, the Reformed also adopt the same sacramental language where they refer to the sign accompanied by the thing signified.
2. And saying that "baptismal regeneration simply means that one is united with Christ through baptism" isn't quite right. If that's true, then Baptists today affirm "baptismal regeneration" in some sense. "Baptismal regeneration" qua baptismal regeneration refers to placing an indelible mark of some sort on the soul itself. You,like many Orthodox e-pologists are confusing forensic categories and ontological categories - and Tertullian qualifies as part of the Western, not Eastern tradition.
3. Actual "regeneration" in the fathers is not the later concept of an infusion of life and grace, but the living of a moral life; and given the fact that conversion was a pre-requisite to adult baptism, and that there was no practical distinction between noumenal and phenomenal converts, then their manner of attributing to baptism the full effects which accompany conversion is perfectly reasonable. One must also remember that the writers who speak of the "effects" of baptism also freely refer to the void of baptism when not accompanied with new life. So it is clear that they do not teach the doctrine of baptismal regeneration as that term is now understood in divinity.
Except that Romans 1 teaches that even unbelievers can do good, apparently then in accordance to their nature.
So there goes original sin and total depravity.
And they are nevertheless condemned because those acts of "good" are not "holy." The text is teaching that they know the difference between right and wrong, yet reject what is right. So, their acts of "good" are not "holy." This is neither a problem for the doctrine of original sin, nor a problem for "total depravity." The latter, in particular simply means that man can do no spiritual good accompanying his own salvation.
But since you do, we'll take that as an admission you are a Pelagian. Good job.
Why? Because the blood of Jesus is in the water of Baptism. I gather you were a Campbellite before you apostatized.
---and all of this is irrelevant to the question of free will. Nice diversionary tactic, but it won't work. So, henceforth in this thread, any post you make that does not address "Free Will" will be deleted.
Genebridges,
ReplyDeleteYou know nothing about the early chistians......nor do you know what they believed.
How about taking some time to actually read them.
After that then maybe we can talk about this issue.
But as of right now.......I'm going to enjoy Holy Week.
JNORM888
I don't have this particular book by Pelikan, but I'm gonna get it now.
ReplyDeleteAs taken from.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num2.htm
Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran patristic scholar) --
"Although references to the doctrine of baptism are scattered throughout the Christian literature of the second and third centuries, only one extant treatise from the period is devoted exclusively to the subject, that of Tertullian. And the most succinct statement by Tertullian on the doctrine of baptism actually came, not in his treatise on baptism, but in his polemic against Marcion....Tertullian argued that none of the four basic gifts of baptism could be granted if that dualism [of Marcion] were maintained. The four gifts were: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and bestowal of the Holy Spirit...It is noteworthy that Tertullian, regardless of how much a Montanist he may have been at this point, was summarizing what the doctrine of the church was at his time -- as well as probably before his time and certainly since his time. Tertullian's enumeration of the gifts of baptism would be difficult to duplicate in so summary a form from other Christian writers, but those who did speak of baptism also spoke of one or more of these gifts. Baptism brought the remission of sins; the doctrine of baptism was in fact the occasion for many of the references to forgiveness of sins in the literature of these centuries [references to Cyprian, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Hermas].""
The Christian Tradition
It should be noted that he converted to Orthodoxy later in life. Around 1998 I believe.
Now I haven't read all of Tertullians works. He wrote too much stuff, But Pelikan noted that from Tertullians work Baptism had 4 different aspects.
1. Remission of sins
2. Deliverance from death
3. Regeneration
4. Bestowal of the Holy Spirit
Pelikan also noted that from all the early christians that did speak of Baptism they spoke of either one or more than one of its gifts.
You think that just because some didn't mention all of the gifts of Baptism, that it meant they disagreed with what another christian had to say about it.
That way of thinking is flawed.
We know when they disagreed about something. Tertullain disagreed with infants being baptized.
What you are doing is an argument based on silence.
Also, what I said about Baptismal regeneration simply being united with Christ is true.
Everything Tertullian said about it is all wrapped up in us being united with Christ in water Baptism.
Also the idea of Christ's blood being in the water is not just a church of christ idea.
I was a Baptist and then a high church Episcopalian before converted to EO.
But you really do need to read the fathers. Because half of what you are saying is just sooo untrue.
JNORM888
When I said I was a baptist .....I didn't mean that Baptists and church of christ have the same view of Baptism.
ReplyDeleteI only mentioned the Baptist part to show that you were wrong about me being church of christ before converting to E.O.
And if you think that Baptists believe that we are united with Christ at water Baptism then you really don't understand Baptist theology.
When I said that Baptismal regeneration simply means being united with Christ through water Baptism......I didn't mean mere symbolism. For that would mean our salvation is merely symbolic.
Also in regards to "free will". I know about the external vs internal thing with Calvinism. This is why I said "resisting both internal & external influences".
You just need to stop & read the early christians. And yes I know for the sake of argument you said that you will concede, but you keep bringing up the idea that they believed like you......and that's totaly false.
JNORM888
Also
ReplyDeleteI wanted to make this clear before I go.
Eventhough some on this blog may stress the idea that "Monergism" is only in regards to "Regeneration".
The fact that you hold to Jonathan Edward's determinism proves that your "monergistic" view of regeneration also bleeds into your view of other doctrines as well.
Now you may not want to call it "monergism", but if it looks like monergism, smells like monergism, and acts like monergism then it's "MONERGISM".
An "irresistible internal influence" behaves the sameway your "Monergism only to regeneration" behaves.
The only difference is you guys don't want to call it "Monergistic".
So you may say that we free willers don't understand Calvinism, but the truth is we do understand it. We just refuse to pretend that an irresistible internal influence doesn't have a "Monergistic behavior".
Because it does!!!
JNORM888