Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: COSC2U2@uhvax1.uh.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The History of Free Will vs. Predestination
Message-ID: 
Date: 14 Aug 89 04:58:55 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: University of Houston
Lines: 128
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

A SHORT SYNOPSIS ON THE PREDESTINATION VS FREE WILL ARGUMENT

    This dispute has been going on , at least since Christ's time.
The Pharasees being in the Predestination Corner, and the Saaducees
being for Free Will. The Old Testament (Septuagint) comes out
unequivocally in Deuteronomy 30:19, at least in tone, in favor of
Free Will. If Christ were to favor Predestination, the Free Willers
would take plenty of consolation from Christ's definition of the
Elect: "God would have ALL MEN to be saved and come unto the Knowledge
of the Truth", which, in effect spikes the Predestinationists guns.

    The Romans 8 argument fails because 1) "Predestined" is used instead
of the the correct word "Claimed", and 2) Even if "Predestined" is permitted,
the whole argument is that God "Predestines" a believer because of foreknown
'Good Works' (Good works are the result of Faith [Faithfullness, if you go
to Habakuk 2]). "Foreknown" establishes a Cause-and-Effect Relation that
Luther and Calvin were unconfortable with, that is, something in the future
causes something in the past ( A quick look in Discovery Magazine's recent
article on Tacheons establishes this possibility. Tacheons move faster than
the speed of light in a NEGATIVE TIME DIRECTION ! Because of God's 
Omnipotence, it follows that Foreknowledge can be a Cause), and their
theologies thus put restrictions on God. The Eastern Orthodox Church 
treats Romans 8 as a Doctrine of Divine Grace, renouncing all Fatalism
connected to the Calvinist-Manichean interpretation of Predestionation.
Most other Churches have followed suit in their own independant ways. 
Christianity initially chose the Free Will path, as St. John Chrysostom was
the leading proponent, and was not seriously opposed in this matter.

    Continuing the history, the next people after the Pharasees to espouse
Predestination were the Persian-based, Synergistic Fire-Worshipping 
Zarathustrian Deviants, the Manicheans. Mani, the founder, preached Dualism,
GOOD/Light/Spiritual (Ahura-Mazda) vs. EVIL/Dark/Material (Ahriman). The 
Ultimate Crime in this Theology was to trap light into darkness. This was
done by 1) Roasting or eating meat, and 2) Procreating. Pennance could be
obtained for 2) by the believers, but not by the priests. Their 3 major
doctrines were 1) Vegetarianism, 2) Celebacy, and 3) Fatalistic Predestination.
This group was scattered far and wide, with survivors living today in Mongolia.
The would recur as Bogomils, Lollards, and Albigenesses. Their Synergistic
character allowed them to pose as Christains in the second through fifth
Centuries. One Manichaen who became a Christian was none other than St.
Ambrose's prodigy, St. Augustine. St. Augustine preached both Free Will
and Predestination. St. Ambrose did not agree with Predestination, and
got into some polemics over this. To confound matters, Pelagius enters
with the argument that Man can achieve grace without divine assistance.
This situation was resolved at the Council of Orange, shortly after St.
Augustine's death, with both Pelagian and Manichean views rejected.

    With the exception of the sporadic recurrences of the Manichaeans, nothing
happens until John Calvin. After much friendly encouragement of the Reformers
by Erasmus, (Indeed, Erasmus is entitled to called the Formost of the
Reformers, if not the Great Reformer of the Roman Catholic Church [Why hasn't
the Pope Cannonized him yet ?].), Erasmus sees that the Reformers have strayed
from the Straight and Narrow path, and publishes "The Freedom of the Will".
This book is rather long, and scholarly, and goes into most of the arguments
for Free Will. One does not have the heart to take him to task when he says
that if you want more, he could bore you with proofs from Acts and Revelation.
Martin Luther takes offense. His "Bondage of the Will" is little more than
a temper tantrum of name-calling because Erasmus did not take his side.
Significant is the fact that Luther cites Melancthon's book as a source
of proofs for Predestination, because Melancthon later takes the position
of Erasmus. 

    At this juncture, Predestination was all but dead, except among the
Calvinists. They stage a near recovery when Patriarch Romanus {The name
could be wrong}, the so-called "Protestant Patriarch" opened negotiations
with the Calvinists to form a united front against the Catholics. Possibly,
Cardinal Richilieu was behind the scenes cementing a Turk-Protestant-French
alliance against the Habsburg-Papal alliance. The "Protestant Patriarch"
adopted a new Creed to apease the Calvinists, but the politically advantageous
Creed was not well recieved by the Greeks. During 1600-1650, the Eastern
Orthodox Church finally rejected Predestination, after 4 Church Councils
spanning this time period, to the extent that adhereing to Predestination
became an Excomunicatable Offense.

    Even today, Predestination makes a sporadic appearance. Indeed, Fatalistic
Predestination is an essential belief of Islam. However, the Council of
Orange  relegated Predestination to Heterodoxy. (Funny how an old discredited
doctrine can reappear. Arianism is now part of New Age Thinking).


--ceb

[It's amazingly difficult to be clear about the exact meaning of
Paul's arguments.  If you've been following my comments, you know that
I think it is going too far to read Calvin's full double
predestinarian interpretation into Rom 9.  I also think it's going too
far to read the later idea that salvation is based on foreknown good
works into Rom 8:29.  The word translated here "foreknew" is given the
meaning "chose before" in Gingrich's Shorter Lexicon.  Its use in Rom
11:2 makes this translation at least plausible, though it seems maybe
a bit too explicitly Reformed.  Unfortunately, Paul just doesn't
directly answer 16th Cent. questions.

Your view of Luther's "Bondage of the Will" seems, shall we say,
quixotic.  As moderator I'm not going to go into a lengthy defense of
one side or the other of this argument.  But both Erasmus and Luther
agreed that the issue of freedom or bondage of the will was the
crucial underlying one of the Reformation.  As such, many Lutherans
consider the Bondage of the Will to be Luther's more important
theological work.  You may not agree with it, but calling it simply a
temper tantrum seems odd.

Are you possibly thinking of Cyril Lucaris, Patriarch of Alexandria,
and later of Constantinople?  He is known for being influenced by
Reformed theology.  The Confession of Dositheus (1672) was directed
against his position.  As you say, it makes it clear that the Eastern
Church did not look kindly on being regarded as Protestant.  Actually,
it uses the word predestined, but it teaches that God's predestination
follows from his foreknowledge of how people will use their free-will.
This is certainly a rejection of predestination in its usual meaning.

I'd be interested in more details about the position that you think
the Council of Orange endorsed.  It certainly rejected double
predestination, and probably also predestination as held by Luther.
However its position also does not seem consistent with that of
Erasmus or the Confession of Dositheus.  It holds that because of
original sin, man is completely helpless, and can do nothing without
God's prior grace.  However it seems to associate the reception of
this grace with baptism.  I get the impression that (consistent
with at least some of what Augustine said) the view is that with
baptism, free will is restored, and then some people choose to
follow God and others not to.  However I'm not entirely sure that's
what they mean.  I have the whole document in front of me, but don't
know anything about the theological context, so I'm reluctant to
draw any firm conclusions.  If I'm right, this isn't exactly the
same view as Erasmus, or at least I don't think it is.

--clh]