Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: COSC2U2@uhvax1.uh.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The History of Free Will vs. Predestination Message-ID:Date: 17 Aug 89 09:58:34 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 161 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Path: elroy!cosc2u2 From: COSC2U2@elroy.uh.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The History of Free Will vs. Predestination Message-ID: <2032@elroy.uh.edu> Date: 16 Aug 89 19:37:14 CDT References: Organization: University of Houston Lines: 153 In article , COSC2U2@uhvax1.uh.edu writes:> > [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. The Definition I used, "claimed" came from Evangelical Free Church Literature dated around 1982-1984. It is not too far removed from your "chose before", and I suspect that some other Lexicon would resolve this minor discrepancy. [For example, the German Bible states that Jonah's vine was a pumpkin, what we call a gourd.] > 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. This is one of the reasons I like patristic literature. Get the opinion of a second, third, fourth, or fifth generation disciple. Try the Didache. TV evangelists will HATE this one, especially the Jack Sparks edition. > > 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. If you had read this book, you will have noticed that Luther uses terms like "Serpent", and "Devil" to depict Erasmus'es character. I was being generous. If Luther was not angry, then he becomes a cold-blooded slanderer. I don't know about you, but when I use the same characterizations that Luther applied to Erasmus on a fellow human or even on a cat, it's an expression of wrath. Luther's work made me doubt that he was a Christain. Luther certainly didn't sound like he was teasing. I recognize that the same argument can be applied to St. Thomas More, friend of Erasmus, who said that "Luther thinks that he is in the hand of God, but in reality, he is in the anus of Satan." Granted, invective can become funny at times, but it does not belong in a theological argument. > > Are you possibly thinking of Cyril Lucaris, Patriarch of Alexandria, > and later of Constantinople? He is known for being influenced by > Reformed theology. probably correct, but I'll look it up again. > 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 the Doctrine of Divine Grace, as it is called by Frank Gavin, an Eastern Orthodox writer of the 1920's. Eastern Orthodox thoroughly despise the word "Predestination" almost as much as "Filioque". It reminds them of 3 things: 1) Iconoclasm, where Predestination-Believing Manicheans within their Church destroyed some Icons, and 2) The flack with their "Protestant Patriarch". 3) Islamic Fatalism. The point here was even when it was politically advantageous, the Eastern Orthodox still would not accept Predestination. > 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. Its been a decade since I've read this one. I'll give you my reference next week. Meanwhile, I was of the opinion that this Council's impact was to identify 2 doctrines not accepted by the Church, Pelagianism, and the failure to be Predestined to Heavan is Predestination to Hell (Thus, I regard Orange not making any positve doctrinal statement, but rather several negative statements. This is not to be derrogatory. Galois's proof of no general fifth order equation solution is also negative.) We also must be sure that we are discussing the same Council of Orange, of which I understand there are two. I'll also reexamine K.S. Latoutette's Histories. > 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. Just because you are completely helpless doesn't mean you have to be happy about it. This is one of Erasmus'es big points. It is like beimg at the bottom of a well with all 4 limbs broken. All you have going for you is a strong pair of teeth, and at least working hearing and vision. God tosses a rescue rope down to you and tells you to bite. Your exercise of Free Will will determine if and how hard you bite. Divine Grace is the fact that you have the opportunity to bite. According to Gavin (cited elsewhere). Divine Grace is Universal but Resistable. Every man can bite, but doesn't have to. I don't see the disagreement you stated above. > However it seems to associate the reception of > this grace with baptism. see comment below on baptism. > I get the impression that (consistent > with at least some of what Augustine said) I simply don't trust Augustine here. He does too many flipflops. He was also a Manichean, and his opinion must be so weighted, even when he seems to be right. > the view is that with > baptism, free will is restored, and then some people choose to > follow God and others not to. Baptism is an external act of Cleansing. It is a blessing, but it will not save by itself. The thief on the right side of Christ was saved without it. Stalin was a priest (by implication, baptised), and could endlessly quote scripture. Stalin, for a good part of life, apparently rejected grace. BELIEVING is where its at. BELIEVING is an act of the WILL. Look at the last verses in Revelation. What happens when you take away from this book? Your name can be taken away from the Book of Life. Martin Luther made it clear that he was not fond of this book when he put it into an appendix, away from the other scripture, like the Catholics do the Apocrypha. Of course, the fact that someone showed that Luther's name in Latin summed to 666 (see Mathematical Circles, I don't remember which volume) may have had something to do with it. > 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. Often, People use different words to say the same thing. The Eastern Orthodox Doctrine of Divine Grace is the same as someone else's Predestination. There may not be a disagreement. A coin has a head and a tail, and looks different on each side, but is still the same coin. > > --clh] your Orthodox Protestant Friend, --ceb