Free will or no free will?

[Bubba]

Pretty smart for a 4 year old!

God ENABLES the will by the "Drawing of ALL unto Christ" John 12:32 - that supernatural act enables ALL to choose Christ if they desire it.

In John 1 we are told that Christ is the light that "coming into the world ENLIGHTENS EVERY MAN""


In Rev 3 He presents His work of reaching the world this way "I STAND at the door AND KNOCK if anyone hears my voice AND OPENS THE DOOR - I WILL come in and fellowship with him".

In John 16:8-12 his work in REACHING the world is described this way "The Holy Spirit sent to CONVICT THE WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment".

Free will in that one respect is both Created AND Sustained by the Creator.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan,

Being a Universalist, I see both John 12:32 and John 1:9 as verses that substantiate our position. In this realm, we are enslaved to Satan (2 Cor.4:4) and need to have a heart transplant to desire that which is truly Holy (Eph. 2:1-9, Ezek. 36:22-28). In the next realm God will eventually bring all people to a knowledge of Christ, though for some, if will not be pleasant, until they have the revelation of Jesus as their Saviour (Rev.14:10).
Revelation 3:20, in context, is in regards to the church, where some degree of synergistic cooperation is expected if the Holy Spirit indeed resides in the individual, it is not about salvation per se.
Grace, Bubba

 

[mondar]

The were several councils held by the ECFs to make known the theology of the ECFs against heretics. Such councils as Nicea, Chalcedon, then Orange are well known. The reason for these councils was to defend against some false teaching or herecy. Nicea is fameous for facing Arianism.

Was not the issue of Orange "free will?" Below I would like to post a quote from the Council of Orange in 529AD. This cut and paste cane be found numerous places on the internet. Just google the "Council of Orange." I took my cut and paste below from http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... range.html . As I go through the Canons, I would like to make comments. Let me say that I am fully aware that my protestant brethren do not regard the canons of Orange as infallible. Neither do I. But can we take instruction from it that the Calvinist view of the will of man is very historic.

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

Here is a denial that we have the ability to "make any right choice with relates to the salvation." We do not have the ability to "assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers."

Faith is then the work of God in man, and not the work of man for God according to this canon.

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

Here the issue of free will comes up directly. The Canon says "...free will, which has manifestly been corrupted...." The Canon denys that man has "...the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves...." What I find interesting is the quote from John 6:44. That is the exact verse often quoted by Calvinists to demonstrate irristible grace. I guess Calvinists did some borrowing ehh?

The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him.

I have no comment to make on the above cut and paste.

Let me repeat what I said above. I know and agree with my protestant brethren that Church councils are not infallible. The Fathers who wrote the Council of Orange did not claim infallibility for their council. The claimed they were right, but that is different then claiming infallibility. I say this because the Council of Orange views regeneration as happening at Baptism. Is this not why they began baptising babies? But that is another topic. I just wanted to look briefly at the council of Orange and Free will.

 

[francisdesales]

The were several councils held by the ECFs to make known the theology of the ECFs against heretics. Such councils as Nicea, Chalcedon, then Orange are well known. The reason for these councils was to defend against some false teaching or herecy. Nicea is fameous for facing Arianism.

Was not the issue of Orange "free will?" Below I would like to post a quote from the Council of Orange in 529AD. This cut and paste cane be found numerous places on the internet. Just google the "Council of Orange." I took my cut and paste below from http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... range.html . As I go through the Canons, I would like to make comments. Let me say that I am fully aware that my protestant brethren do not regard the canons of Orange as infallible. Neither do I. But can we take instruction from it that the Calvinist view of the will of man is very historic.

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

Here is a denial that we have the ability to "make any right choice with relates to the salvation." We do not have the ability to "assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers."

Mondar,

A careful reading of the intent of the Fathers at Orange was to deny that man ALONE could do these things. This was against Pelagianism. The disciples of Pelagius thought man could come to know God and chose Him through natural means and that man could WITHOUT God's graces, come to virtue and love of neighbor. The Church stated that we cannot. But the Church defends this point of view while NOT denying that man CAN chose right from wrong when graced by God. Note both Scripture verses above from Orange. APART from Christ, we can do nothing. WITH Christ, we can do anything. Our competence is from God, not ourselves. Nevertheless, we still will be judged on those graced-moved decisions that WE make.

Yes, Calvinism "borrowed" from sources other than Scriptures. Calvin's love of cutting and pasting Augustine is well-known. Unfortunately, he went too far in denying Man's Freedom in the name of God's Sovereignty without accepting that this is a mystery of faith that BOTH somehow exist and are part of our faith. This is the result of rationalization on a paradox of faith. The Bible clearly speaks of both concepts and thus, religious figures who deny one deny the Word of God. On such subjects, Mondar, we cannot dismiss one and accept the other. God's revelation teaches the existence of both - and if we have the faith of a child (which Scripture say we must have to enter the Kingdom), we accept God's Word without trying to rationalize it.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Francisdesales,
I certainly do not disagree that Pelagianism is the background heresy for the Council of Orange. However, I do not see the council of Orange as suggesting synergism of Rome as the solution to the synergism of Pelagius as you seem to be suggesting.

Can you show any evidence of your assertions?

Mondar

 

[Bubba]

A bit of info that might help with background on Pelagian thought. Bubba

Augustine and Pelagius
By R. C. Sproul



"It is Augustine who gave us the Reformation." So wrote B. B. Warfield in his assessment of the influence of Augustine on church history. It is not only that Luther was an Augustinian monk, or that Calvin quoted Augustine more than any other theologian that provoked Warfield's remark. Rather, it was that the Reformation witnessed the ultimate triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over the legacy of the Pelagian view of man.

Humanism, in all its subtle forms, recapitulates the unvarnished Pelagianism against which Augustine struggled. Though Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome, and its modified form, Semi-Pelagianism was likewise condemned by the Council of Orange in 529, the basic assumptions of this view persisted throughout church history to reappear in Medieval Catholicism, Renaissance Humanism, Socinianism, Arminianism, and modern Liberalism. The seminal thought of Pelagius survives today not as a trace or tangential influence but is pervasive in the modern church. Indeed, the modern church is held captive by it.

What was the core issue between Augustine and Pelagius? The heart of the debate centered on the doctrine of original sin, particularly with respect to the question of the extent to which the will of fallen man is "free." Adolph Harnack said:


There has never, perhaps, been another crisis of equal importance in church history in which the opponents have expressed the principles at issue so clearly and abstractly. The Arian dispute before the Nicene Council can alone be compared with it. (History of Agmer V/IV/3)

The controversy began when the British monk, Pelagius, opposed at Rome Augustine's famous prayer: "Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." Pelagius recoiled in horror at the idea that a divine gift (grace) is necessary to perform what God commands. For Pelagius and his followers responsibility always implies ability. If man has the moral responsibility to obey the law of God, he must also have the moral ability to do it.

Harnack summarizes Pelagian thought:


Nature, free-will, virtue and law, these strictly defined and made independent of the notion of God - were the catch-words of Pelagianism: self-acquired virtue is the supreme good which is followed by reward. Religion and morality lie in the sphere of the free spirit; they are at any moment by man's own effort.
The difference between Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism is more a difference of degree than of kind. To be sure, on the surface there seems like there is a huge difference between the two, particularly with respect to original sin and to the sinner's dependence upon grace. Pelagius categorically denied the doctrine of original sin, arguing that Adam's sin affected Adam alone and that infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the Fall. Pelagius also argued that though grace may facilitate the achieving of righteousness, it is not necessary to that end. Also, he insisted that the constituent nature of humanity is not convertible; it is indestructively good.

Over against Pelagius, Semi-Pelagianism does have a doctrine of original sin whereby mankind is considered fallen. Consequently grace not only facilitates virtue, it is necessary for virtue to ensue. Man's nature can be changed and has been changed by the Fall.

However, in Semi-Pelagianism there remains a moral ability within man that is unaffected by the Fall. We call this an "island of righteousness" by which the fallen sinner still has the inherent ability to incline or move himself to cooperate with God's grace. Grace is necessary but not necessarily effective. Its effect always depends upon the sinner's cooperation with it by virtue of the exercise of the will.

It is not by accident that Martin Luther considered The Bondage of the Will to be his most important book. He saw in Erasmus a man who, despite his protests to the contrary, was a Pelagian in Catholic clothing. Luther saw that lurking beneath the controversy of merit and grace, and faith and works was the issue of to what degree the human will is enslaved by sin and to what degree we are dependent upon grace for our liberation. Luther argued from the Bible that the flesh profits nothing and that this "nothing" is not a little "something."

Augustine's view of the Fall was opposed to both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. He said that mankind is a massa peccati, a "mess of sin," incapable of raising itself from spiritual death. For Augustine man can no more move or incline himself to God than an empty glass can fill itself. For Augustine the initial work of divine grace by which the soul is liberated from the bondage of sin is sovereign and operative. To be sure we cooperate with this grace, but only after the initial divine work of liberation.

Augustine did not deny that fallen man still has a will and that the will is capable of making choices. He argued that fallen man still has a free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas). The state of original sin leaves us in the wretched condition of being unable to refrain from sinning. We still are able to choose what we desire, but our desires remain chained by our evil impulses. He argued that the freedom that remains in the will always leads to sin. Thus in the flesh we are free only to sin, a hollow freedom indeed. It is freedom without liberty, a real moral bondage. True liberty can only come from without, from the work of God on the soul. Therefore we are not only partly dependent upon grace for our conversion but totally dependent upon grace.

Modern Evangelicalism sprung from the Reformation whose roots were planted by Augustine. But today the Reformational and Augustinian view of grace is all but eclipsed in Evangelicalism. Where Luther triumphed in the sixteenth century, subsequent generations gave the nod to Erasmus.

Modern evangelicals repudiate unvarnished Pelagianism and frequently Semi-Pelagianism as well. It is insisted that grace is necessary for salvation and that man is fallen. The will is acknowledged to be severely weakened even to the point of being "99 percent" dependent upon grace for its liberation. But that one percent of unaffected moral ability or spiritual power which becomes the decisive difference between salvation and perdition is the link that preserves the chain to Pelagius. We have not broken free from the Pelagian captivity of the church.

That one percent is the "little something" Luther sought to demolish because it removes the sola from sola gratia and ultimately the sola from sola fide. The irony may be that though modern Evangelicalism loudly and repeatedly denounces Humanism as the mortal enemy of Christianity, it entertains a Humanistic view of man and of the will at its deepest core.

We need an Augustine or a Luther to speak to us anew lest the light of God's grace be not only over-shadowed but be obliterated in our time.

 

[Paidion]

We need an Augustine or a Luther to speak to us anew lest the light of God's grace be not only over-shadowed but be obliterated in our time.

It's too bad the apostle Paul was born too soon to be instructed by Augustine, Luther, or Calvin.
If he had been so instructed, perhaps he wouldn't have written considered man's choice so important concerning the gift of eternal life, as he expressed in the following passage:


For he will render to everyone according to his works: to those who by perseverance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth, but are persuaded by wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil ... but glory and honour and well-being for every one who does good ... For God shows no partiality. (Romans 2:6-11)

 

[Bubba]

For he will render to everyone according to his works: to those who by perseverance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth, but are persuaded by wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.

Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil ... but glory and honour and well-being for every one who does good ... For God shows no partiality. (Romans 2:6-11)

Paidion,
1John 1:1-5, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.â€Â

In Christ our works are seen as perfect, apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15:5). So, who is it that overcomes by doing the works of God (Ephesians 2:10)? He who is born of God and believes (John 1:13).

Grace, Bubba

 

[mondar]

Bubba,
You post in quoting Sproul was very good. Any chance you will give us the documentation? Did you take it from a book, or was it an online article?

Mondar

 

[francisdesales]

Francisdesales,
I certainly do not disagree that Pelagianism is the background heresy for the Council of Orange. However, I do not see the council of Orange as suggesting synergism of Rome as the solution to the synergism of Pelagius as you seem to be suggesting.

Can you show any evidence of your assertions?

Mondar

What synergism does Pelagius assert???

Regards

 

[Bubba]

Bubba,
You post in quoting Sproul was very good. Any chance you will give us the documentation? Did you take it from a book, or was it an online article?

Mondar

Mondar,
You will find it here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianis ... lagius.htm

Bubba

 

[Paidion]

In Christ our works are seen as perfect, apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15:5). So, who is it that overcomes by doing the works of God (Ephesians 2:10)? He who is born of God and believes (John 1:13).

Would God "see our works as perfect" if, in fact, they were evil works?

I agree that we need the enabling grace of God to do good works, and that the regenerated person overcomes. But this in no way implies that the unregenerated person is unable to choose God as Augustinianism/Calvinism affirms.

Yahweh (the LORD) speaking through Joshua said:

Joshua 24:15 And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

Obviously Yahweh knew, even in Joshua's day long before our Lord Jesus died for us, that people had the free will to choose to serve Him.

Free will is one of the chief ways in which man has been created in the image of God. All through history, God has respected the free will of man. This fact is part of the solution to the age-old "problem of evil".

There is not a shred of Scriptural evidence that man lost his free will as a result of Adam and Eve's rebellion.

 

[mondar]

Francis,
you said...

A careful reading of the intent of the Fathers at Orange was to deny that man ALONE could do these things.

Francisdesales,
I certainly do not disagree that Pelagianism is the background heresy for the Council of Orange. However, I do not see the council of Orange as suggesting synergism of Rome as the solution to the synergism of Pelagius as you seem to be suggesting.

Can you show any evidence of your assertions?

Mondar

What synergism does Pelagius assert???

Regards

I was asking for evidence... Where in the wording of the council of orange do you see the "intent of the Fathers at Orange to deny that man ALONE could do these things." The fact that Pelagius is in the background of the council is well known and plainly obvious.

I dont know why you ask the question about Pelagius. It seems a rabbit trail. If your merely stalling for time to do some research, thats fine. I have a job and life away from this board too. I am not a professional scholar that has all these things in my head either. I understand taking all the time you need. I am sure you will be searching Keatings web site or your favorite book. Everyone gets help from our favorite sources. I hope you also do original source work and read the 2nd Council of Orange itself. While I am aware that some of the reformed claim the Council of Orange is in their favor, I am not taking their word. I read it for myself. I see things in the Canons that the reformed would not like. The Canons also have baptismal regeneration which I deny. (However, denial of a council is within my theological frame work of sola scriptura-- It is you that must demonstrate that all councils agree with each other--and of course if the Council of Orange is Monergistic and the council of Trent is synergistic it is no problem for me.)

I suspect we both know Pelagius denied the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin. Pelagius taught that man has total free will and that Original Sin does not affect mans free will. Pelagius did not see Original Sin as any hindrance to mans cooperation (synergism) with the will of God.

The 7th Canon of the Council of Orange sounds very monergistic to me.

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index ... ormed.org/
documents/canons_of_orange.html

When I observe the very first part of the fist sentence..."If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life." How can our will then be interpreted as cooperating with the will of God?

 

[Bubba]

Would God "see our works as perfect" if, in fact, they were evil works?

Our best work we can do is still sullied with sin. Our motives, our pride as well as other areas of our personalities are always suspect as we battle with the flesh. This is why only in Christ’s perfect righteousness are we seen as righteous.
"Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputed not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile." Psalm 32:1-2

"Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Romans 4:6-8

Joshua 24:15 And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
Obviously Yahweh knew, even in Joshua's day long before our Lord Jesus died for us, that people had the free will to choose to serve Him.

The paradox of Scripture is that even though we see God’s law telling us to choose that which is pure and spiritual, we can not and will not prior to “regenerationâ€Â. Scripture is very clear that we are enslaved to Satan until liberated by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 2:14, “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.â€Â




2 Corinthians 4:4, “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.â€Â

Free will is one of the chief ways in which man has been created in the image of God. All through history, God has respected the free will of man. This fact is part of the solution to the age-old "problem of evil".

The problem of evil is not solved by “freedom of the willâ€Â; in fact the thought takes away from God’s attributes. If He is truly omniscience He already knows our actions before they happen, He knows who will say yes and who will say no to Jesus, why not interfere with our will if our eternal state is at stake? We would certainly usurp a love one’s “freewill†if their life was in jeopardy. Of course, I have a different solution; God will eventually reconcile all people to Himself, such is His great love.
Bubba

 

[francisdesales]

I was asking for evidence... Where in the wording of the council of orange do you see the "intent of the Fathers at Orange to deny that man ALONE could do these things." The fact that Pelagius is in the background of the council is well known and plainly obvious.

As such, the matter will tend to focus on the manner by which Pelagius' followers were wrong. The Council of Orange discussed where Pelagius was incorrect, so one wouldn't expect to find a dissertation on the free will of man within Orange. The Council provides corrective against the Pelagian idea that man by his own natural ability can come to God (which is why I ask "what synergism does Pelagius assert"?)

The quotes used by the Council do not close the door on the other side of the coin, that man has free will and that WITH God, man CAN choose good. Scriptures are full of such indications.

A closer reading of the canons will be my evidence. For example,

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

I see synergy here. Man prays, but it is God's grace itself that makes us pray. Man can refuse to pray or utilize God's gift of grace to follow the will moved by God to pray.

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

I see synergy here. God AWAITS our will - but that this requires an infusion of the Spirit...

Again, Catholic teaching.

Or how about the conclusion?

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.

"Synergy" again. "AID and COOPERATION of Christ..." That is not "monogerism"...

And the last sentence... Calvinism is refuted before it even begins... But no, the "Reformers" don't read that sentence, only those they like. What a shame...

I dont know why you ask the question about Pelagius. It seems a rabbit trail. If your merely stalling for time to do some research, thats fine. I have a job and life away from this board too. I am not a professional scholar that has all these things in my head either. I understand taking all the time you need. I am sure you will be searching Keatings web site or your favorite book. Everyone gets help from our favorite sources.

The question on Pelagius is not "stalling". I will use the time given to attempt to answer your question - I don't need an "excuse" to do that... Your assertion of the "synergy of Pelagius" is confusing and mistaken, to say the least, and thus, I question it. If you feel that is some means of "gaining more time", so be it. But I assure you, I don't need such excuses - I will answer you at my own whim - or not at all, if I so feel like it. I try to answer you out of charity, not necessity.

I hope you also do original source work and read the 2nd Council of Orange itself.

I have read it and applaud you for at least knowing about its existence. I don't see the Calvinist point of view there, although I can see how a Calvinist with already pre-conceived notions would search Catholic writers to "back-up" their point of view. You have already told me that the Council holds very little authority to you - and thus, a Catholic Council like Trent that more clearly describes grace (and dismissed Calvinism as heresy) is ignored. Such picking and choosing, cutting and pasting, is merely trying to back up an already held point of view. As you know, every sect can point to Scripture verses and twist them to their own delight - why can't people do the same with other Catholic writings that are not inspired by God?

While I am aware that some of the reformed claim the Council of Orange is in their favor, I am not taking their word. I read it for myself. I see things in the Canons that the reformed would not like. The Canons also have baptismal regeneration which I deny. (However, denial of a council is within my theological frame work of sola scriptura-- It is you that must demonstrate that all councils agree with each other--and of course if the Council of Orange is Monergistic and the council of Trent is synergistic it is no problem for me.)

That is YOUR interpretation of the words and intent of the Council based on your Calvinist background, not the Church or the men of that particular age. My answers above explain your interpretation is not all-encompassing nor are the canons SOLELY "monergistic". I could quote numerous Church Fathers of this time frame that state that man has free will and is EXPECTED to obey the commandments of God - with God's grace. Again, as I said initially, we must accept ALL of what Scriptures say on the matter. Clearly, there is NOT a denial of man's free will because of God's Sovereignty. The former RELIES on the latter...

As to Orange "vs" Trent, you are viewing two sides of the same coin. The first is the Catholic response to one extreme, the second is the Catholic response to the OPPOSITE extreme... Trent does not cancel out the teachings that refute the opposite extreme. We hold a middle position, but sometimes, because of heresy, we must emphasize one side more than the other to refute one extreme. That is how defending the middle ground works...

I suspect we both know Pelagius denied the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin. Pelagius taught that man has total free will and that Original Sin does not affect mans free will. Pelagius did not see Original Sin as any hindrance to mans cooperation (synergism) with the will of God.

The canons mention that, as does some of Augustine's writings vs Pelagius. I don't think Pelagius even believed in original sin. Adam's sin was his own, not ours - and thus, man's nature was not effected. Funny, Pelagius was overreacting to some poor Catholics who weren't practicing their faith. In his attempted reform to get people to take their faith more seriously, he preached heresy. I find it funny because it (overreacting to libertine Catholics) is OFTEN the reason behind heretic teachings, such as the "Reformation" in the 1500's.

The 7th Canon of the Council of Orange sounds very monergistic to me.
CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life,

Let me give you the intent behind the words.

...by one's self without God's grace...[/quote]

as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

Regards

 

[mondar]

The quotes used by the Council do not close the door on the other side of the coin, that man has free will and that WITH God, man CAN choose good. Scriptures are full of such indications.

Oh, scriptures are "full" of such indications? Why there must be hundreds of obvious references that demand free will interpretation? Right? Please show me the word "free will" in the scriptures! The only place it occurs is in the book of Leviticus with the "free will" offering. That is completely unrelated to the concept of what we are discussing as "free will."

Also, adding the vague and undefined phrase "with God" does not really do much. When man chooses, it is because God has chosen men to choose him (John 15:16).

A closer reading of the canons will be my evidence. For example,

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

I see synergy here. Man prays, but it is God's grace itself that makes us pray. Man can refuse to pray or utilize God's gift of grace to follow the will moved by God to pray.

So you see synergy in the words above? Because man prays, you see synergy? Really... : )?

I honestly dont have the foggiest idea how you could assert that because "human prayer" is mentioned as not conferring any grace, but that grace moves us to pray... How can that be synergism. God must first move for us to pray is synergism? If Human prayer is nothing more then an appeal to the almighty and completely sovereign God, how is that synergism? Is this canon asserting that God cannot do anything without man first praying? Is canon asserting that man and God cooperate to get the job done? All I see in that Canon is that what happens is all due to the grace of God. Where do you get synergism out of human prayer?

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

I see synergy here. God AWAITS our will - but that this requires an infusion of the Spirit...

Again, Catholic teaching.

Do you really want to make this a Catholic vs Protestant thing? Of course I look at Catholics as reading their theology back into words were their theology is not actually found. This canon is not even close to synergistic language.

When you read the words "he resists the Holy Spirit. Please look at the above canon that you quoted and tell me what proposition is resistance to the Holy Spirit?

The synergism you are asserting is being called "resists the Holy Spirit." What this canon is condemning is the very thing you are asserting.

The canon asserts that "even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit,. Even our desire for cleansing and salvation is the work of the HS. That is not synergism! Our sill is not equal with the HS, it is subservient to the HS.

Or how about the conclusion?

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.

"Synergy" again. "AID and COOPERATION of Christ..." That is not "monogerism"...

And the last sentence... Calvinism is refuted before it even begins... But no, the "Reformers" don't read that sentence, only those they like. What a shame...

Francis, I am beginning to wonder if you have the ability to write with emotional detachment. Your arguments carry little weight, but your emotional rhetoric gets a little carried away.

Yet again in the canon you quote, you pick and choose only to read certain words while ignoring the entire sentence. Yes, this canon asserts that the saved "have the ability and responsibility to cooperate with Christ. Yet notice the first part of the sentence. When do people have that ability? The first part says "after grace has been received through baptism . Now at the council of Orange they did believe in Baptismal regeneration. The view they are espousing is that free will is not natural, but established by baptismal regeneration. Even in monergistic Calvinist theology we deny the mastery of the sin nature after salvation. That is not the issue of free will. The issue is do you come to Christ synergisticly. Since this Canon is talking about after salvation (baptismal regeneration) it is not synergism.

Now do not assume that I am agreeing with Baptismal Regeneration. But I dont wish to broaden our discussion to include that point also. I am aware that you do believe in that part of the Council of Orange as most or all Catholics do.

I hope you also do original source work and read the 2nd Council of Orange itself.

I have read it and applaud you for at least knowing about its existence. I don't see the Calvinist point of view there, although I can see how a Calvinist with already pre-conceived notions would search Catholic writers to "back-up" their point of view. You have already told me that the Council holds very little authority to you - and thus, a Catholic Council like Trent that more clearly describes grace (and dismissed Calvinism as heresy) is ignored. Such picking and choosing, cutting and pasting, is merely trying to back up an already held point of view. As you know, every sect can point to Scripture verses and twist them to their own delight - why can't people do the same with other Catholic writings that are not inspired by God?

Protestants definitely pick and choose among the early Church Fathers. I do not disagree that the ECFs did very well with what they had. Yet to say I agree with every early Church Father would be intellectual suicide. They were like going into a book store and getting 25 different opinions. Several different interpretations of most passages can be found among the ECFs. Do Roman Catholics pick and choose when it comes to Augustine? Do they pick and choose when it comes to the monergism of the council of Orange?

Funny, Pelagius was overreacting to some poor Catholics who weren't practicing their faith. In his attempted reform to get people to take their faith more seriously, he preached heresy. I find it funny because it (overreacting to libertine Catholics) is OFTEN the reason behind heretic teachings, such as the "Reformation" in the 1500's.

Heh, who is overreacting here? Hey dude, chill a little bit.

The 7th Canon of the Council of Orange sounds very monergistic to me.
CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life,

Let me give you the intent behind the words.

...by one's self without God's grace...

[/quote]
You seem to be struggling here. Generally Calvinists do not have a problem with saying that mans decisions are based on the grace of God. But in the sense I am speaking of that is strictly a monergistic statement. Gods grace is not just a necessary help, but is solely responsible for our change of heart.

This is where free will takes away from the grace of God and becomes a works based religion. in the framework of your Catholic theology, salvations by faith and works is not a problem though. But such is free will theology.

PS, I will not be online until next week, so take your time.

 

[francisdesales]

Oh, scriptures are "full" of such indications? Why there must be hundreds of obvious references that demand free will interpretation? Right? Please show me the word "free will" in the scriptures!

The concept of free will is there, just as Trinity, Incarnation, and "Bible"... The term "synergy" is also found in Sacred Scriptures. God gives us the movement of our wills, but in the end, we do have the choice to follow Him or not. Otherwise, the giving of commandments to mankind would be pointless. Augustine noted that, as well.

Also, adding the vague and undefined phrase "with God" does not really do much. When man chooses, it is because God has chosen men to choose him (John 15:16).

So you say. But without God, I can do nothing good. So I would suppose that "with God" is much more meaningful to me than to you.

[So you see synergy in the words above? Because man prays, you see synergy? Really... : )?

Yep. I can pray or not pray. I am not bound by some force to bend the knee and offer to God. I do so because I am moved to and agree with the desire to perform the act.

I honestly dont have the foggiest idea how you could assert that because "human prayer" is mentioned as not conferring any grace, but that grace moves us to pray... How can that be synergism. God must first move for us to pray is synergism? If Human prayer is nothing more then an appeal to the almighty and completely sovereign God, how is that synergism? Is this canon asserting that God cannot do anything without man first praying? Is canon asserting that man and God cooperate to get the job done? All I see in that Canon is that what happens is all due to the grace of God. Where do you get synergism out of human prayer?

I will be judged based on how I utilized the "talents" God has given me. No doubt you are aware of the parable. According to you, GOD is judged based on what HE does...

I think not. MAN is judged - and it will be based on what He does as a result of synergistic acts, since NOTHING we do alone can bring salvation. But in Christ, my acts become Christ and ME working. I am not a mere bystander, and I retain responsibility for my acts.

When you read the words "he resists the Holy Spirit. Please look at the above canon that you quoted and tell me what proposition is resistance to the Holy Spirit?

The synergism you are asserting is being called "resists the Holy Spirit." What this canon is condemning is the very thing you are asserting.

The canon asserts that "even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit,. Even our desire for cleansing and salvation is the work of the HS. That is not synergism! Our sill is not equal with the HS, it is subservient to the HS.

I don't recall saying that my acts are equal to the Holy Spirit. I don't recall saying anything to the effect that God does 99% and I do 1% of the work. Regardless, I can grieve the Holy Spirit by refusing His Grace. Paul over and over warns Christians about this very thing - taking for granted the gift that can be resisted.

Francis, I am beginning to wonder if you have the ability to write with emotional detachment. Your arguments carry little weight, but your emotional rhetoric gets a little carried away.

That's ONE way of ignoring what the Council says regarding the heresy of double predestination. The words remain, despite any emotion I attach to them. Please try to address the issue.

Yet again in the canon you quote, you pick and choose only to read certain words while ignoring the entire sentence. Yes, this canon asserts that the saved "have the ability and responsibility to cooperate with Christ. Yet notice the first part of the sentence. When do people have that ability? The first part says "after grace has been received through baptism .

I don't believe I said a person could receive redemption BEFORE baptism. Of course we can't. Again, you are arguing a point that I never made or implied.

Now at the council of Orange they did believe in Baptismal regeneration. The view they are espousing is that free will is not natural, but established by baptismal regeneration. Even in monergistic Calvinist theology we deny the mastery of the sin nature after salvation. That is not the issue of free will. The issue is do you come to Christ synergisticly. Since this Canon is talking about after salvation (baptismal regeneration) it is not synergism.

The Church has always proclaimed that no one can come to Christ except those whom God calls. And yet, God desires ALL men to be saved - and thus, potentially calls ALL men at some point in their lives. God plants the seed, but the soil is also part of the formula.

Protestants definitely pick and choose among the early Church Fathers. I do not disagree that the ECFs did very well with what they had. Yet to say I agree with every early Church Father would be intellectual suicide.

Agree.

They were like going into a book store and getting 25 different opinions. Several different interpretations of most passages can be found among the ECFs. Do Roman Catholics pick and choose when it comes to Augustine? Do they pick and choose when it comes to the monergism of the council of Orange?

The Church has already "picked and choosen", if you will, the correct descriptions of our faith as written by the Fathers. Much of what Augustine wrote was orthodox, but some was not. The Church is NOT the thoughts of one man, even the Pope. Thus, some of what Augustine wrote was tossed aside. I don't personally pick and choose what to believe of Augustine's writings, unlike Calvin, who ignored EVERYTHING Augustine said about the real presence of the Eucharist, sacramental theology, the Virgin Mary, and honor given to saints in heaven. Thus, the heresiarch picks and chooses writings that are to his liking. The Church, working on the power given from above, has the DUTY to disregard and condemn false teachings (Mat 18:16-17). WE don't pick and choose when it comes to Augustine. The Church did it long ago for the sake of the flock.

This is where free will takes away from the grace of God and becomes a works based religion. in the framework of your Catholic theology, salvations by faith and works is not a problem though. But such is free will theology.

A "works based religion" is one where man believes he can earn his way to salvation WITHOUT GOD'S HELP. We don't believe we can do anything good without God. We are merely returning the gift of Grace to God when we do good deeds. While I cannot fully explain the paradox between the Sovereignty of God and man's free will, I accept it as the plan of God, a gift He has given us in where we somehow are given the freedom to Love God with His gift (Talents) or to not Love God and not use the gifts.

Regards

 

[turnorburn]

To the great debate 2008

 

[Bubba]

A Luther quote from "Bondage of the Will":

"Does it follow from: 'turn ye' that therefore you can turn? Does it follow from "'Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart' (Deut 6.5) that therefore you can love with all your heart? What do arguments of this kind prove,
but the 'free-will' does not need the grace of God, but can do all things by its own power...But it does not follow from this that man is converted by his own power, nor do the words say so; they simply say: "if thou wilt turn,
telling man what he should do. When he knows it, and sees that he cannot do it, he will ask whence he may find ability to do it..."

Bubba

 

[MarkT]

Yahweh (the LORD) speaking through Joshua said:

Joshua 24:15 And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

Obviously Yahweh knew, even in Joshua's day long before our Lord Jesus died for us, that people had the free will to choose to serve Him.

Notice he said, 'if you be unwilling', and then he said, 'choose'; 'choose between the gods your fathers served beyond the river, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell.'

He didn't say they could choose the LORD. He said, if they were not willing to serve the LORD, then they could choose whatever god or gods they would serve. Thus it is the spirit that is willing to serve the LORD. Otherwise you can choose. And the choices are false gods.

So any one who says they have chosen the LORD is probably following a false god; a god chosen for the sake of tradition or a god that most of the people where they live follow.

Free will is one of the chief ways in which man has been created in the image of God. All through history, God has respected the free will of man. This fact is part of the solution to the age-old "problem of evil".

Read the proverbs; 'a man's mind plans his ways, but the LORD directs his steps.' Pr. 16:9

So you might think you are in complete control but it would not be true. God can make you change your mind.

Did the Israelites, in fact, 'choose' to serve the LORD? No. They were not willing to forsake their gods. Joshua said, 'You cannot serve the LORD'. The people said, 'Nay; but we will serve the LORD.' Then Joshua said, 'You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the LORD, to serve him.' Indeed his words were prophetic.

And he took a great stone and he set it up there under the oak in the sanctuary of the LORD, and he said, 'Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us' and 'a witness against you, lest you deal falsely with your God.'

But did their saying they would serve God mean they did? No. They dealt falsely with God. They stoned the prophets. Was it their choice? Yeah. They did choose, but they couldn't choose God. They chose false teachers to lead them instead. And that's pretty much what choosing implies, because God is Holy, and there is no one else; no other God or gods to chose between. If you say you have chosen God, then you have lowered God to the level of a false god. And the LORD is a jealous God. Could they have chosen to serve God? Nope.

You can't choose God unless God chooses you first. You can't love God unless God loves you first.

 

[MarkT]

Please show me the word "free will" in the scriptures! The only place it occurs is in the book of Leviticus with the "free will" offering. That is completely unrelated to the concept of what we are discussing as "free will."

In Paul's letter to Philemon, he says, 'though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, yet for love's sake I prefer to appeal to you' 1:8, and, 'but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might be without compulsion but of your own freewill.' 1:14

Of course we are free in Christ, as God is at work in us, both to will and to work for his good pleasure' as Paul says in his letter to the Philippians. Phil. 2:13

So we can speak this way. But I agree the question of belief and faith are unrelated to 'freewill' as it is being discussed here, for here it is usurping the power and the will of God. If it is free of God, then it is not in submission, and therefore it is not doing the will of God - not a prisoner, as Paul repeats.

As usual, the creature is full of it's own self importance. It decides God can't do anything without his permission. The creature thinks he is born again by his own will and that he can enter the kingdom by his own will, whether God let's him in or not. Or he can choose not to. But can a son choose not to be a son? I don't think it's possible to choose it. But a son of the kingdom can 'not be' a son of the kingdom if the light in him is darkness. There is an outer darkness reserved for them. Can they understand and not understand at the same time? Can they have knowledge and not have knowledge at the same time? I guess so, if the light in them is darkness.