Well, it wasn't.
1. Paul claims all Scripture is "God breathed"- II Tim 3:16 not tradition breathed.
2. Peter claims Paul's writings were scripture- II Peter 3:16. This gives us 60% of the NT.
3. Paul claims that Luke's gospel was scripture. I Timothy 5:17-18
refers to a passage only found in Luke as "scripture". Luke was part of a
2 volume set with Acts. Thus, both of these books were viewed as scripture.
4. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would teach his apostles "all
things" in John 16:13-14, 26. This would mean that John's gospel (written by an eyewitness that "Jesus loved"), 3
letters, and Revelation were viewed as scripture.
5. Matthew seems to have been written by Levi, one of the apostles and an eye witness. This would mean it was viewed as scripture.
6. Jesus' brother James was viewed as a leader among the apostles and the Spirit descended upon himv(Gal
1:19, I Cor 15:7). Thus, his letter was viewed as scripture.
7. Mark's gospel appears to be the oldest and early post biblical sources attribute him as the writer with aid from Peter.
Thus, the only books we have not established as authoritative in the
early, early church are Hebrews and Jude. While we do not have the
entire NT canon mentoned here, we do have 95% of it. This wrecks the
argument that the NT was not established until the 4th/5th century and
that the Bible derives its authority from the church. Instead, we see
the opposite. Jesus, by the Spirit, through the apostles, leaves the scriptures to
instruct the church. Instead of tradition birthing scripture, tradition
only is valid if it is built upon scripture.
This is reflected in extra biblical evidence like the Muratorian Canon
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Did Augustine believe in predestination? Part II- Predestination
And if he had willed to teach even those to whom the word of the
cross is foolishness to come to Christ, beyond all doubt, these also
would have come. Chapter 14 of On the Predestination of the Saints
Prolegomena: We should probably start by defining predestination. The church is united in its belief that man does not seek God unless God first initiates a relationship. Both would agree that faith is a gift from God- referring to Phil 1:29, he writes "[Paul] shows both [believing and suffering for Christ] are the gifts of God, because he said both were given. And he does not say "to believe on Him more fully and perfectly," but "to believe on him" (Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 4) . There are two sides the predestination coin. I'll attempt to flesh them out to show what predestination is and how Augustine believed in it.
1. Irresistible Grace- God's grace cannot be effectively resisted. If God decides to save someone, he will eventually succeed. Because not all are saved, God must not attempt to save everyone. Calvinists and Lutherans hold to this view. Arminians and Catholics do not.
2. Unconditional Election- God chooses who he will save regardless of whether they would have chosen him. Arminians and Catholics would say God is all knowing (as would Calvinists and Lutherans) and chooses who he will save based upon whether or not they would have rejected him if given a chance. Calvinists and Lutherans by contrast say Therefore the mercy by which he freely delivers and the truth by which he righteously judges, are equally unsearchable. -Augustine On the Predestination of the Saints, Chapter 11. We simply do not why he saves who he saves.
The Arminian and Catholic response to these points is defended by man having a free will. The Calvinists and Lutherans by contrast see a "bondage of the will" to quote Martin Luther. I dealt with Augustine's view of free will and how it differs from the modern notions of free will in the previous post. We will focus on Augustine's writings on these issues and see that he was a forerunner to Calvin, Luther, and the Reformation on this issue.
When we talk about what Augustine believed regarding a given issue, we of course mean the final position that he arrived at. All scholars recognize that he changed his position on some issues. Even the Pope would agree. The works I will refer to are taken from his latter works.
In chapter 7 of Predestination he changed his position that faith originated with us And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God's gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God's grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitbably ask, except that we could not beileve if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. Later he states touches on his former believe in conditional election I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: 'God did not therefore choose the works of anyone in foreknowledge of what He himself would give them but he chose the faith in the foreknowledge that he would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on him.
Then he explains why he believed he had been in error I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I yet as found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, "A remnant are saved according to the election of grace. (see Rom 11:5)". Thus, we have Augustine changing his views. But, to what?
In chapter 11, he writes "Many hear the word of truth; but some believe, while others contradict. Therefore, the former will to believe, the latter do not will." Who does not know this? Who can deny this? But, since in some the will is prepared by the Lord, in others it is not prepared, we must distinguish what comes from God's mercy, what comes from his judgement." Note, here he is saying that God prepares some wills to believe and not others.
Here is mercy and judgement- mercy towards the election which obtained the righteousness of God, but judgement to the rest which have been blinded...Therefore mercy and judgement were manifested in the very wills themselves. A few sentences later he writes but to the rest who were blinded, as is there plainly declared, it was done in recompense". The part that sticks out to me is how this spiritual blindness is God's judgement. He punishes them by preventing them from seeing him.
This passage from the Enchiridion is a clear example of "double predestination". 101As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds, for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to grace. 102 But, however strong the wills either of angels or of men, whether good or evil, whether they will what God willeth or will something else, the will of the Omnipotent is always undefeated God does not simply save some and leave the rest to perish to their own devices. He uses the deeds of the wicked to bring further condemnation on them.
As will be outlined below, in Chapter 14 of Predestination, Augustine explains All whom He teaches, He teaches in mercy, while those whom He teaches not, in judgement he teaches not. Augustine sees ignorance of God as judgement.
Some object to God punishing those he has rejected and hardened. Augustine quotes Paul as many Calvinists do today when confronted with this objection For who resists his will? does the apostle answer "O man what thou has said is false? No; but he says, "O man, who are thou that repliest against God?
He holds the view that we can never know why some elected and not others in Chapter 16. But why he delievers one rather than another- "His judgements are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out.(Rom 11:33) For it is better in this case for us to hear or to say, "O man, who art thou that repliest against God? (Rom 9:20) than to dare to speak as if we could know what He has chosen to be kept secret.
He writes But, unto them which are called, (I Cor 1:24) in order to show that there were some who were not called in chapter 3.
B. A modern example: The bread and butter of the Arminian response to all of this is I Timothy 2:4 where Paul writes that God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. In the Enchiridion, section 103 Augustine writes In any case, the word concerning God, "who wills all men to be saved", does not mean there is no one's salvation he does not will...but by all men we are to understand the whole of mankind, in every single group into which it can be divided... As an aside- before dismissing Augustine's view of this passage, we should ask ourselves, are there examples in the New Testament where "all" does not absolutely mean all? In Matthew 10:22, Jesus warned we will be hated "by all" because of his name. If every single person in the world does not hate you, are you being unfaithful to God?
II Irresistible grace
In chapter 13 of Predestination, he writes All that the Father giveth me shall come to me (referring to John 6:37). What is the meaning of "shall come to me,", but, "shall believe in me"? After commenting a little more on the passage, he elaborates, What is the meaning of, "Every man that hath heard from the Father and hath learned cometh to me, except that there is none who hears from the Father, and learns, who cometh not to me (John 6:44-45)? For if every one who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes, certainly everyone who does not come has not heard from the Father... For no one has heard and learned, and has not come; but every one, as the Truth declares, who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes.
On the issue of learning, Augustine explains the Son teaches of the heart along with the Spirit. And if there is some thought that this teaching can be resisted, he writes at the end of the chapter This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of taking away the hardness of heart. Augustine then proceeds to write an entire chapter explaining why the Father does not teach all that they may come to Christ.
III. Examples of Both
95. Then what is now hidden will not be hidden: when one of two infants is taken up by God's mercy and the other abandoned through God's judgment--and when the chosen one knows what would have been his just deserts in judgment--why was the one chosen rather than the other, when the condition of the two was the same? Or again, why were miracles not wrought in the presence of certain people who would have repented in the face of miraculous works, while miracles were wrought in the presence of those who were not about to believe. For our Lord saith most plainly: "Woe to you, Chorazin; woe to you, Bethsaida. For if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles done in your midst, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."200 Now, obviously, God did not act unjustly in not willing their salvation, even though they could have been saved, if he willed it so In this part of the Enchiridion, he shows that God could have brought some people to repentance but chose not to.
So, what we have is a man that does not believe we are able to choose God from our own free will, that we are unable to resist his grace, and that God elects not to attempt to save people who might believe under certain circumstances. It's hard to be more Calvinist than that.
Prolegomena: We should probably start by defining predestination. The church is united in its belief that man does not seek God unless God first initiates a relationship. Both would agree that faith is a gift from God- referring to Phil 1:29, he writes "[Paul] shows both [believing and suffering for Christ] are the gifts of God, because he said both were given. And he does not say "to believe on Him more fully and perfectly," but "to believe on him" (Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 4) . There are two sides the predestination coin. I'll attempt to flesh them out to show what predestination is and how Augustine believed in it.
1. Irresistible Grace- God's grace cannot be effectively resisted. If God decides to save someone, he will eventually succeed. Because not all are saved, God must not attempt to save everyone. Calvinists and Lutherans hold to this view. Arminians and Catholics do not.
2. Unconditional Election- God chooses who he will save regardless of whether they would have chosen him. Arminians and Catholics would say God is all knowing (as would Calvinists and Lutherans) and chooses who he will save based upon whether or not they would have rejected him if given a chance. Calvinists and Lutherans by contrast say Therefore the mercy by which he freely delivers and the truth by which he righteously judges, are equally unsearchable. -Augustine On the Predestination of the Saints, Chapter 11. We simply do not why he saves who he saves.
The Arminian and Catholic response to these points is defended by man having a free will. The Calvinists and Lutherans by contrast see a "bondage of the will" to quote Martin Luther. I dealt with Augustine's view of free will and how it differs from the modern notions of free will in the previous post. We will focus on Augustine's writings on these issues and see that he was a forerunner to Calvin, Luther, and the Reformation on this issue.
When we talk about what Augustine believed regarding a given issue, we of course mean the final position that he arrived at. All scholars recognize that he changed his position on some issues. Even the Pope would agree. The works I will refer to are taken from his latter works.
In chapter 7 of Predestination he changed his position that faith originated with us And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God's gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God's grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitbably ask, except that we could not beileve if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. Later he states touches on his former believe in conditional election I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: 'God did not therefore choose the works of anyone in foreknowledge of what He himself would give them but he chose the faith in the foreknowledge that he would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on him.
Then he explains why he believed he had been in error I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I yet as found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, "A remnant are saved according to the election of grace. (see Rom 11:5)". Thus, we have Augustine changing his views. But, to what?
In chapter 11, he writes "Many hear the word of truth; but some believe, while others contradict. Therefore, the former will to believe, the latter do not will." Who does not know this? Who can deny this? But, since in some the will is prepared by the Lord, in others it is not prepared, we must distinguish what comes from God's mercy, what comes from his judgement." Note, here he is saying that God prepares some wills to believe and not others.
Here is mercy and judgement- mercy towards the election which obtained the righteousness of God, but judgement to the rest which have been blinded...Therefore mercy and judgement were manifested in the very wills themselves. A few sentences later he writes but to the rest who were blinded, as is there plainly declared, it was done in recompense". The part that sticks out to me is how this spiritual blindness is God's judgement. He punishes them by preventing them from seeing him.
This passage from the Enchiridion is a clear example of "double predestination". 101As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds, for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to grace. 102 But, however strong the wills either of angels or of men, whether good or evil, whether they will what God willeth or will something else, the will of the Omnipotent is always undefeated God does not simply save some and leave the rest to perish to their own devices. He uses the deeds of the wicked to bring further condemnation on them.
As will be outlined below, in Chapter 14 of Predestination, Augustine explains All whom He teaches, He teaches in mercy, while those whom He teaches not, in judgement he teaches not. Augustine sees ignorance of God as judgement.
Some object to God punishing those he has rejected and hardened. Augustine quotes Paul as many Calvinists do today when confronted with this objection For who resists his will? does the apostle answer "O man what thou has said is false? No; but he says, "O man, who are thou that repliest against God?
He holds the view that we can never know why some elected and not others in Chapter 16. But why he delievers one rather than another- "His judgements are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out.(Rom 11:33) For it is better in this case for us to hear or to say, "O man, who art thou that repliest against God? (Rom 9:20) than to dare to speak as if we could know what He has chosen to be kept secret.
He writes But, unto them which are called, (I Cor 1:24) in order to show that there were some who were not called in chapter 3.
B. A modern example: The bread and butter of the Arminian response to all of this is I Timothy 2:4 where Paul writes that God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. In the Enchiridion, section 103 Augustine writes In any case, the word concerning God, "who wills all men to be saved", does not mean there is no one's salvation he does not will...but by all men we are to understand the whole of mankind, in every single group into which it can be divided... As an aside- before dismissing Augustine's view of this passage, we should ask ourselves, are there examples in the New Testament where "all" does not absolutely mean all? In Matthew 10:22, Jesus warned we will be hated "by all" because of his name. If every single person in the world does not hate you, are you being unfaithful to God?
II Irresistible grace
In chapter 13 of Predestination, he writes All that the Father giveth me shall come to me (referring to John 6:37). What is the meaning of "shall come to me,", but, "shall believe in me"? After commenting a little more on the passage, he elaborates, What is the meaning of, "Every man that hath heard from the Father and hath learned cometh to me, except that there is none who hears from the Father, and learns, who cometh not to me (John 6:44-45)? For if every one who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes, certainly everyone who does not come has not heard from the Father... For no one has heard and learned, and has not come; but every one, as the Truth declares, who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes.
On the issue of learning, Augustine explains the Son teaches of the heart along with the Spirit. And if there is some thought that this teaching can be resisted, he writes at the end of the chapter This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of taking away the hardness of heart. Augustine then proceeds to write an entire chapter explaining why the Father does not teach all that they may come to Christ.
III. Examples of Both
95. Then what is now hidden will not be hidden: when one of two infants is taken up by God's mercy and the other abandoned through God's judgment--and when the chosen one knows what would have been his just deserts in judgment--why was the one chosen rather than the other, when the condition of the two was the same? Or again, why were miracles not wrought in the presence of certain people who would have repented in the face of miraculous works, while miracles were wrought in the presence of those who were not about to believe. For our Lord saith most plainly: "Woe to you, Chorazin; woe to you, Bethsaida. For if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles done in your midst, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."200 Now, obviously, God did not act unjustly in not willing their salvation, even though they could have been saved, if he willed it so In this part of the Enchiridion, he shows that God could have brought some people to repentance but chose not to.
So, what we have is a man that does not believe we are able to choose God from our own free will, that we are unable to resist his grace, and that God elects not to attempt to save people who might believe under certain circumstances. It's hard to be more Calvinist than that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)