Early Church Fathers vs. Calvinism

The early church fathers (Polycarp to before Augustine) held on to beliefs similar to Arminian beliefs and nothing containing calvinist beliefs. The church father beliefs were in conflict with the gnostic beliefs around this time who believed man is naturally flawed and fatalism. Augustine came around 400 A.D. with the first mention of original sin and predestination and calvinistic teachings. He use to be a Manichean gnostic before converting. How do we know he wasnt inspired from the gnostics when he came up with his theology? Why would it take until 400 A.D. to discover these calvinist beliefs that noone held on to?

 

Why is it that Eschatology, as a systematized doctrine, was not really focused on until really the past 500 years? And that might be stretching it!

 

Thats not really defending the fact that the church fathers believed in free will instead of predestination. I find it very odd he came up with his theology that shares with his old gnostic religion and doesnt line up with the church fathers before him.

 

Hum...

John Gill in his book: "The Cause of God and Truth", quotes many of the Early Church Fathers when they taught:

Source

Wow! I see a lot of quotes from the ECF's teaching in support of the "doctrines of grace". And quite a few of them were before Augustine!

Hum...

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

The traditional understanding of the ancient Church as a whole is closer to an Arminian position than a Calvinist position. Calvinism only takes part of Augustine anyway. It conveniently forgets all the other stuff that comes with Augustine, like his teachings on Catholicism. Augustine heavily emphasized predestination, but the works of other theologians and the understanding of the Church as a whole is a larger scope than just Calvinism.

 

Well if we want to talk about historical support, then of course the Roman Catholic church would have to take the cake, since it was established by an empire and made state religion. However, I will side with Luther, in that, an institution that claims to be set up by God Himself, in which the Vicar of Christ [such as Pope Leo X] rules and sells indulgences in which people can buy their way into heaven by strictly monetary means is, with no due respect, blasphemous and heretical. I don't care how much historical support you wish you display, the fact of the matter is that their teachings and their past actions do not align with Scripture. A famous excerpt from Luther:

 

Luther is recent news. Go back further, long before the corruption of Reformation-era Italy. Long before the Great Schism, when the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church were one. You will not find the notion of Calvinism as it is expressed today. The historical church is conciliar, and from the Catholic POV, governed by the Pope. The Orthodox would disagree heartily on that issue. The selling of indulgences and other practices found at the time of the Reformation were corruptions, yes. That is what sparked the Reformation in the first place. Luther initially wanted to stay in the Church. However, he eventually forced his way out and took it too far.

That's all beside the point, anyway. The main point is that you will not find Calvinism as a full set of teachings in its own context until Calvin showed up.

 

It isn't besides the point. My point is that no amount of history can prove something as being right, as Luther himself showed. The "holy" Roman Catholic church, which supposedly has a hierarchy of elected officials who have authority granted from God Himself in order to interpret Scriptures infallibly and speak infallibly, has a history of being heretical all the way up to the top. If you want to argue as to something being right on the basis of history alone, then we can drop Rome from the discussion much easier than Calvinism. And I will quote again:

 

Well, you would have to provide citations for the discussion of the history of Catholicism. But that is a topic better suited to General Theology, and it's probably been done there at least a thousand times.

I'm not arguing something being right on the basis of history alone. I am, however, arguing that history cannot be thrown out. The Christian Church was founded upon Tradition, and the Bible was produced out of said Tradition.

There was no notion of Calvinism until Calvin showed up and took what he needed from Augustine's teachings. So what was the state of affairs before that? Was Christianity just in darkness for 1500 years before Calvin came along, or are we going to adopt the "remnant" theory where there's always a small group (usually oppressed by the larger Church, of course) that believes X, where X in this case is Calvinism?

The closest thing to Calvinism before Calvin was Augustine, but in the larger context of Augustine's teachings, he promoted a theology very much different than Calvin. This is also likely the case of the Church Fathers that Dean has given references to. I have not dug into all of those links yet. Maybe I will at a later time.

 

Being rather dogmatic, aren't we? If anyone taught Calvinism in it's fullness, it would have been Luther who was before Calvin. So that in and of itself proves your statement wrong. And to say their was no notion of Calvinism before Calvin is largely unfounded; what about Wycliffe or Hus? Augustine and Aquinas certainly had a notion of Calvinism, no?

 

Lets see here, who taught the Calvinistic idea of "predestination" before the Reformation, before Luther, before Calvin, before Augustine, before the establishment of the Roman Catholic church, before the early church fathers?



Hum...

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will," -Eph. 1:4-5 (KJV)

"to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son," -Rom. 8:28-29 (KJV)

Seems to me that the teaching and preaching of "predestination by Paul the Apostle, predates the ECF's, the RCC, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin.

Lets see here, one of the first men outside Paul to teach on predestination is Clement of Rome, circa AD 69.

Epist. ad Corinth.i. p. 2.
Ibid. p. 104.

Epist. ad Corinth. 1. 64.
Ibid. p. 6.
Ibid. p. 130.​

But shoot, that is an easy one to miss.​

God Bless​

Till all are one.​

 

Luther was rather "predestinarian," as it were, yes. And perhaps he did teach the fullness of Calvinism. That still does not change my point much. Luther was not alive much earlier than Calvin. When I talk of Calvinism, I am referring to the full TULIP idea and all that comes with it. There was a notion of predestination before Calvin, Zwingli, etc. Predestination as a concept is separate from Calvinism, and can take several different forms.

The main innovation that Calvin/Luther/insert possible Calvinist reformer here brought to the table was to take Augustinian predestination and cut off the context of the rest of Augustine's teachings, as well as the context of the teachings of the larger Christian body, and focus solely on Augustinian predestination. When you strip the rest of Augustine's ideas away, and the ideas of the rest of the Church away, it certainly becomes easy to come up with TULIP.

 

There is a difference between "predestination" and all of the other things that Calvinism attaches to it. Just because a person upholds a form of predestination, does not make a person a Calvinist. All Christians that belief in God's ability to fully know the past and future believe in some form of predestination. However, not all of those people believe in the Calvinistic notion of such.

 

Umm ... no.

Luther and Calvin differed fundamentally on many points: the sacraments (big one), double predestination, the resistiblity of grace, perseverance, etc.

Calvin's theology begins with the sovereignty of God. While not neglecting God's sovereignty, Luther's starting point was salvation by faith alone.

 

true , there is the Calvinist understanding of predestination then there is the inconsistant notion of predestination , usually it's POST-destination masquerading as pre-destination .

 

Because errors come in 24-packs.

 

More to the point, Luther was also no systematician. What he lacked in the ability to develop a coherent, consistent argument, he more than made up for in his aggressive arguments and rhetorical grandstanding. Not that I'm complaining--this is precisely what makes his works so enjoyable to read, even in spite of the questionable theological ends at which he often arrives.

In Luther, one finds an uncanny and unflinching ability to speak propositionally out of one side of the mouth while concomitantly retreating behind the unknowable mystery of God out of the other.

 

Deacon Dean,

brilliant. You read the Church Fathers with the same blinders you read scripture.

The understanding of "predestination" as put forth by reformed theology has never existed prior to Calvin, and it has since been changed and refined. I'm not sure reformed theology is still finalized on this view.

it does, which is why Calvinism is incorrect regarding their doctrine of predestination.

 

Im more concerned about Augustine, his gnostic background, and his theology of predestination that the Early Church fathers taught the opposite of. Along with Augustine being the first one to incorporate the idea of "original sin" being inherited. His ex-gnostic religion believed in the similar idea of original sin and predestination that Augustine formed when he became a christian.

 

It didn't help that he had poor texts from which to theologize...