Did God create any creature with the plan to hate it?

[Xeno.of.athens]

Some maintain that God has an eternal plan that encompasses everything that happens in creation; this plan, sometimes called God's eternal decree, includes the final disposition of every creature, some to heaven, some to hell, some not mentioned specifically. Do the scriptures teach that God has an eternal decree, is it detailed and inclusive of the final disposition of every creation, and does it imply that God intends for some creatures to end up in hell and that God intended them to be hell-bound from eternity?

 

[All Becomes New]

No. Christ died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

But God does choose some people specifically for a certain purpose (Apost Paul, for example). In other words, everyone has a way "in" to the Kingdom of heaven, but some people are especially anointed.

God does not decree "whatsoever comes to pass." More like God runs the earth as the king of the universe. Nothing happens without Him allowing it. That does not mean He needs to micromanage everything in the universe. So Christ as King means he can step into whatever situation he wants, but he often doesn't and leaves things to play out without his direct control.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No. Christ died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

But God does choose some people specifically for a certain purpose (Apost Paul, for example). In other words, everyone has a way "in" to the Kingdom of heaven, but some people are especially anointed.

God does not decree "whatsoever comes to pass." More like God runs the earth as the king of the universe. Nothing happens without Him allowing it. That does not mean He needs to micromanage everything in the universe. So Christ as King means he can step into whatever situation he wants, but he often doesn't and leaves things to play out without his direct control.

Interesting reply.

What passages of scripture do you rely upon for it?

 

[All Becomes New]

Read this for a little bit of my soteriology:

Hi.

I'd like to offer up a possible reading of the epistles in the NT and have it vetted by the community.

There are different pronouns used throughout the epistles. Examples of this are "You," "We," "Our," "I," etc.

This might shed some light on how we read the epistles to have an idea of a bigger picture of a doctrine in the Bible. Allow me to give a few examples.

I will first go to the, IMO, clearest example, found in Ephesians.

The pronoun usage in Ephesians 1:3-12 is "Us" and "We."
Then in verse 13 we read, "In Him you also" (emphasis mine).
So Paul is making a difference in groups between the "We" and "You."
So if that is all it was it would be nothing and just a way Paul talked.
But Paul tells us who the "Us" and "We" is in Ephesians 2:20 where it says, "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets."
This tells us nothing. But in verse 2:22, we see the same exact phrasing, "In Him you also."
So Paul is connecting the "We" and "Us" in Ephesians 1:3-12 and Ephesians 2:20 and contrasting that with this second group, "You" in Ephesians 1:13 and Ephesians 2:22 respectively.
Alright, so what does this mean? Well, given Paul tells us the foundation is the "apostles and prophets" who is the "we" and "us" from Ephesians 1:3-12 we should keep in mind what it says in that passages.
One notable thing it says in Ephesians 1:3-12 is that "He made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he purposed in Christ," and that, "he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in love before him."
So the apostles and prophets were chosen "before the foundation of the world" and God "Made known the mystery of his will."

But maybe I am just being selective in seeing something in just one epistle?
I'd argue I can find this in nearly every epistle.
Take 1 Corinthians, for example.
In 1 Corinthians 1:3–15, 30; 2:1–3 the pronouns used are "you"
In 2 Corinthians 1:18, 23, 30; 2:6–7 the pronouns used are "we" and "us."
Notice where they are both present in 1 Corinthians 1:30 "It is from him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom from God for us—our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption," (emphasis mine).
God became "wisdome from God" for "us" Paul says. Much like "made known to 'us' the mystery of his will," from Ephesians.

Here is another example from 1 John.
In 1 John 1:1-10 the pronouns that are used are "us" and "we" (mostly). Take note of the beginning where it says, "what we have seen with our eyes, what we have observed and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—that life was revealed, and we have seen it and we testify and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us."

Are you getting the picture yet?
Do I need to go on?
I can do this same thing for nearly every epistle.

So the question is, how does this affect the kingdom of heaven?
My understanding is that this demonstrates that the kingdom of heaven, here on earth, works more or less as a hierarchy. But the catch is that those at the top are people who God has revealed some mystery to.
Now, some might say, "Oh, yes, that would be the apostolic traditions!" But I am not inclined to agree. Why? Because in apostolic traditions it is based on the "laying on of hands" or put to a vote rather than a "mystery revealed."
So then the Potestants who believe in Sola Scriptura will say, "See, special revelation has ceased!" I'm not inclined to agree with them either. Why? I will give you one reason.
"And he himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of God’s Son, growing into maturity with a stature measured by Christ’s fullness." (Ephesians 4:11–13) (emphasis mine). The italics clearly has not happened yet. As such, if pastors are still around today, as well as teachers, as well as evangelists, then there is no reason to rule out "apostles and prophets."

I hope you can see where I am coming from. But if you can't, could you please show me where I am wrong?

Thank you.

Beyond that, I think we can extrapolate a lot from places where it says God is in control of things. Here is one such passage:

"Then Job answered the LORD and said: “I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
‘Hear, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.’
I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.”" (Job 42:1–6)

Here, it does not say that God does control everything, but He could if He wanted to. The only verse I can think of that says that God controls everything in the universe is here:

"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs." (Hebrews 1:3–4)

But this "upholding by the word of His power," does not need to be taken literally. I can be taken to mean that whatever God wants to happen happens.

But there is also Ephesians which it says,

"him who works all things according to the counsel of his will," (Ephesians 1:11)

But again, this does not mean God exhaustively micromanages everything in the universe, only that He could if He wanted to.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Some maintain that God has an eternal plan that encompasses everything that happens in creation; this plan, sometimes called God's eternal decree, includes the final disposition of every creature, some to heaven, some to hell, some not mentioned specifically. Do the scriptures teach that God has an eternal decree, is it detailed and inclusive of the final disposition of every creation, and does it imply that God intends for some creatures to end up in hell and that God intended them to be hell-bound from eternity?

Those who hold this view follow five point Calvinism. There is a struggle to understand God's character . Though He has foreknowledge, He does not foreordain. He chooses those who choose Him. Blessings.

 

[Hawkins]

God created freewill, that is, entites are free to break the Law. God defined a stardard which is Law for a Heaven to be built.

So what do you want? That's the question. You want lawlessness? You want a Heaven not to be built? Or you want entities without freewill like a robot?

God's job is to define such a standard, in order to build and maintain en eternity we call Heaven. He loves His sheep, as He knows who they are and how there freewill will go, and hates those who try their best to lead His sheep astray. This is the path of reasoning, the OP is misleading. God didn't plan to make those wicked to lead His own sheep astray on purpose. That's not how it works. While Law is an open standard, and God didn't plan on purpose to make one break it. In contrary, He wishes everyone saved.

 

[BobRyan]

Some maintain that God has an eternal plan that encompasses everything that happens in creation; this plan, sometimes called God's eternal decree, includes the final disposition of every creature, some to heaven, some to hell, some not mentioned specifically. Do the scriptures teach that God has an eternal decree, is it detailed and inclusive of the final disposition of every creation, and does it imply that God intends for some creatures to end up in hell and that God intended them to be hell-bound from eternity?

"God is not WILLING for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" 2 Peter 3.
"God so loved the WORLD that He gave" John 3:16

God created free will - this puts a layer of indirection between God's will for a being - vs what that being chose. So although the "many" in Matt 7 go to the lake of fire perdition in Rev 20 -- it is not God's will that ANY should perish.

God does not need to deny Himself the ability to see the future - to grant free will.

 

[Lost4words]

Did God create any creature with the plan to hate it?​

Yes, cats!

 

[BobRyan]

Did God create any creature with the plan to hate it?​

Yes, cats!

ok but -- "other than cats"?

 

[Lost4words]

ok but -- "other than cats"?

Mother-in-laws!

 

[Dosblade]

It would seem GOD can only create life not death. So believe some tiny crawling things once they die they are gone for ever. Can't find scripture for that. Where do we think that love that caring we have for them came from.. haha

 

[ViaCrucis]

Some maintain that God has an eternal plan that encompasses everything that happens in creation; this plan, sometimes called God's eternal decree, includes the final disposition of every creature, some to heaven, some to hell, some not mentioned specifically. Do the scriptures teach that God has an eternal decree, is it detailed and inclusive of the final disposition of every creation, and does it imply that God intends for some creatures to end up in hell and that God intended them to be hell-bound from eternity?

I might agree that God does have an eternal decree, but damnation--and therefore hell--does not feature in it. God's eternal decree, found all the way back in Genesis, is that of all He has made "it is exceedingly good". And thus the eternal will and purpose of God is salvation in Christ Jesus, "by whom and for whom were all things made" (Colossians 1:16) "to sum up all things, both in heaven and earth, in [Christ]" (Ephesians 1:10).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I might agree that God does have an eternal decree, but damnation--and therefore hell--does not feature in it. God's eternal decree, found all the way back in Genesis, is that of all He has made "it is exceedingly good". And thus the eternal will and purpose of God is salvation in Christ Jesus, "by whom and for whom were all things made" (Colossians 1:16) "to sum up all things, both in heaven and earth, in [Christ]" (Ephesians 1:10).

-CryptoLutheran

Wisdom speaks about it, saying,

"For the whole world before thee is as a little grain of the balance, yea, as a drop of the morning dew that falleth down upon the earth. But thou hast mercy upon all; for thou canst do all things, and winkest at the sins of men, because they should amend. For thou lovest all the things that are, and abhorrest nothing which thou hast made: for never wouldest thou have made any thing, if thou hadst hated it. And how could any thing have endured, if it had not been thy will? or been preserved, if not called by thee? But thou sparest all: for they are thine, O Lord, thou lover of souls."​

Wisdom 11:22-26

 

[The Liturgist]

Some maintain that God has an eternal plan that encompasses everything that happens in creation; this plan, sometimes called God's eternal decree, includes the final disposition of every creature, some to heaven, some to hell, some not mentioned specifically. Do the scriptures teach that God has an eternal decree, is it detailed and inclusive of the final disposition of every creation, and does it imply that God intends for some creatures to end up in hell and that God intended them to be hell-bound from eternity?

No. It is my firm view that Calvinist predestination can neither be proven nor disproven via Scripture. My gradual volte-face on Calvinism is a result of Patristic opposition to monergism, particularly in the Oriental Orthodox church and in the Chalcedonian church at the Second Council of Constantinople.

My support for it historically was based on divine omniscience, which I believe extends even to things which are unknowable by humans; for example, God knows what is inside the event horizon of a black hole, and He also knows the position and momentum of electrons in orbit of an atom with perfect precision, which we literally cannot know, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. However, just because God knows the outcome does not mean that he did not give us free will; furthermore, God, being omnipotent, could literally force the universe to be non-deterministic so that we would have actual free will. And this might even explain some of the pecularities of quantum mechanics.

I do hope by the way that this is the only time I have to mention quantum mechanics in the context of theology, as I really dislike quantum woo, and I do not believe that superpositions, virtual particles or decoherence have any more bearing on our Christian faith than the statistical renormalization required to perform reasonable calculations using quantum mechanics. Although one could argue that they do literally have an impact on our spiritual life, if spiritual is defined as literally pneumatic, insofar as the gas we breathe does consist of atoms moving at a high speed in a gaseous state, which are occasionally ionized by, for example, lightning bolts or electrical sparks, and we also have cosmic rays, so occasionally, a neutron or a gamma ray or a positron from a distant galaxy will hit the geomagnetosphere, contributing to the Aurora Borealis, and even more rarely, one will interact with us, or with a computer (high end computers use memory with ECC, error correction code, that is duplicated, so that they won’t crash as a result of a bit flip, which can happen when a high energy photon from outer space hits the silicon of the memory module and becomes an electron due to the photovoltaic effect, which can change a 1 to a 0; such an incident is reckoned to be the most likely cause for an incident near Australia where a Qantas A330 unexpectedly took a steep dive from its normal cruising altitude down to I think 9,000 feet or thereabouts, resulting in severe injuries to passengers and flight attendants.

 

[The Liturgist]

I might agree that God does have an eternal decree, but damnation--and therefore hell--does not feature in it. God's eternal decree, found all the way back in Genesis, is that of all He has made "it is exceedingly good". And thus the eternal will and purpose of God is salvation in Christ Jesus, "by whom and for whom were all things made" (Colossians 1:16) "to sum up all things, both in heaven and earth, in [Christ]" (Ephesians 1:10).

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, I like this very much, provided it is interpreted non-monergistically. By the way, at times Lutheranism strikes me as coming closer to monergism than, for instance, the theology of Arminius or John Wesley. Is this an erroneous view on my part, or is Lutheranism closer to monergism without necessarily being monergist? (Which would surprise me greatly, given that Lutheranism usually aligns with Eastern and Oriental Orthodox theology except on the issue of sola fide, but even the sola scriptura issue is less of a variation from Orthodoxy than it seems, and of course, you recently posted a thread about theosis, which is as Orthodox and Athanasian as you can get.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes, I like this very much, provided it is interpreted non-monergistically. By the way, at times Lutheranism strikes me as coming closer to monergism than, for instance, the theology of Arminius or John Wesley. Is this an erroneous view on my part, or is Lutheranism closer to monergism without necessarily being monergist? (Which would surprise me greatly, given that Lutheranism usually aligns with Eastern and Oriental Orthodox theology except on the issue of sola fide, but even the sola scriptura issue is less of a variation from Orthodoxy than it seems, and of course, you recently posted a thread about theosis, which is as Orthodox and Athanasian as you can get.

Keeping in mind that Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk prior to the Reformation, it only makes sense that he embraced much of the monergism found within Augustine's writings.

In a curious twist of history, John Calvin has been branded as having invented monergism, to the point where it is no longer known as monergism, but as Calvinism. Both Calvin and Luther share from the Augistinian fount of monergism.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, I like this very much, provided it is interpreted non-monergistically. By the way, at times Lutheranism strikes me as coming closer to monergism than, for instance, the theology of Arminius or John Wesley. Is this an erroneous view on my part, or is Lutheranism closer to monergism without necessarily being monergist? (Which would surprise me greatly, given that Lutheranism usually aligns with Eastern and Oriental Orthodox theology except on the issue of sola fide, but even the sola scriptura issue is less of a variation from Orthodoxy than it seems, and of course, you recently posted a thread about theosis, which is as Orthodox and Athanasian as you can get.

Lutherans would identify as monergists, in that our regeneration, conversion, and justification is the work of God alone. The Lutheran Confessions state that the will is entirely passive in conversion and regeneration; but that God takes hold of the will through Word and Sacrament to create a regenerate will in man that yields in faith.

In regeneration and justification it is monergistic: God's work alone.
In sanctification it is synergistic: Man cooperating with God's grace.

"But, on the other hand, it is correctly said that in conversion God, through the drawing of the Holy Ghost, makes out of stubborn and unwilling men willing ones, and that after such conversion in the daily exercise of repentance the regenerate will of man is not idle, but also cooperates in all the works of the Holy Ghost, which He performs through us.

Also what Dr. Luther has written, namely, that man’s will in his conversion is pure passive, that is, that it does nothing whatever, is to be understood respectu divinae gratiae in accendendis novis motibus, that is, when God’s Spirit, through the Word heard or the use of the holy Sacraments, lays hold upon man’s will, and works [in man] the new birth and conversion. For when [after] the Holy Ghost has wrought and accomplished this, and man’s will has been changed and renewed by His divine power and working alone, then the new will of man is an instrument and organ of God the Holy Ghost, so that he not only accepts grace, but also cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the works which follow.

Therefore, before the conversion of man there are only two efficient causes, namely, the Holy Ghost and the Word of God, as the instrument of the Holy Ghost, by which He works conversion. This Word man is [indeed] to hear; however, it is not by his own powers, but only through the grace and working of the Holy Ghost that he can yield faith to it and accept it." (Source: II. Free Will.)

In order to be cooperators with God in obedience to His will, our will must be unshackled from its total enslavement to sin, by the death of the old man and the creation of the new in Christ. I.e. what Lutheran theologians refer to as "the new obedience".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

Lutherans would identify as monergists, in that our regeneration, conversion, and justification is the work of God alone. The Lutheran Confessions state that the will is entirely passive in conversion and regeneration; but that God takes hold of the will through Word and Sacrament to create a regenerate will in man that yields in faith.

In regeneration and justification it is monergistic: God's work alone.
In sanctification it is synergistic: Man cooperating with God's grace.

"But, on the other hand, it is correctly said that in conversion God, through the drawing of the Holy Ghost, makes out of stubborn and unwilling men willing ones, and that after such conversion in the daily exercise of repentance the regenerate will of man is not idle, but also cooperates in all the works of the Holy Ghost, which He performs through us.

Also what Dr. Luther has written, namely, that man’s will in his conversion is pure passive, that is, that it does nothing whatever, is to be understood respectu divinae gratiae in accendendis novis motibus, that is, when God’s Spirit, through the Word heard or the use of the holy Sacraments, lays hold upon man’s will, and works [in man] the new birth and conversion. For when [after] the Holy Ghost has wrought and accomplished this, and man’s will has been changed and renewed by His divine power and working alone, then the new will of man is an instrument and organ of God the Holy Ghost, so that he not only accepts grace, but also cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the works which follow.

Therefore, before the conversion of man there are only two efficient causes, namely, the Holy Ghost and the Word of God, as the instrument of the Holy Ghost, by which He works conversion. This Word man is [indeed] to hear; however, it is not by his own powers, but only through the grace and working of the Holy Ghost that he can yield faith to it and accept it." (Source: II. Free Will.)

In order to be cooperators with God in obedience to His will, our will must be unshackled from its total enslavement to sin, by the death of the old man and the creation of the new in Christ. I.e. what Lutheran theologians refer to as "the new obedience".

-CryptoLutheran

So what is the Lutheran view of the idea that only because of the special grace of God the Holy Ghost convicting us of sin do we have the ability, or perhaps I should say the opportunity, to chose to repent and have faith, and to respond to that faith by being grafted on to the Body of Christ through baptism, but some people, due to misanthropy, misotheism, hardness of heart or addiction to the sinful passions will refuse the opportunity to repent and thus of their own stubborn volition will not be saved, whereas others will be saved because the grace of God made it possible for them to have faith?

 

[The Liturgist]

Keeping in mind that Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk prior to the Reformation, it only makes sense that he embraced much of the monergism found within Augustine's writings.

In a curious twist of history, John Calvin has been branded as having invented monergism, to the point where it is no longer known as monergism, but as Calvinism. Both Calvin and Luther share from the Augistinian fount of monergism.

But St. Augustine wasn’t really a monergist in the pure sense of the word - had he been the Second Council of Constantinople, also known as the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, would likely have anathematized him, as he was at the time not as high profile as he would become, with another Latin monk and fellow anti-Pelagian, St. John Cassian, being as widely read in monasteries at the time as St. Augustine would later become in the West (the Eastern churches continue to embrace St. John Cassian).

Also while I am sympathetic to your argument concerning Calvinism being called Monergism, in that it would allow for greater clarity in talking about the specific doctrines of John Calvin and those Reformed and Presbyterian churches which most closely adhere to his theological concept, there exists a problem, and that is that logically speaking, Pelagianism and Universalism are also forms of Monergism, in that the Pelagian believes that only human energy procures salvation, that we save ourselves on our own, which is obviously the opposite of the Calvinist and Lutheran belief in Soli deo gloria, and which is also rejected as a heresy by nearly everyone else*, and the Universalist believes, like the Calvinist, that all who are saved are saved solely through the efforts of God, but then reject the idea that any will not be saved, which most reject although there are vocal universalists on ChristianForums and elsewhere, and I shall not discuss why I and most others reject it because such a discussion could only happen in Controversial Christian Theology, and frankly I am sick of debating with universalists and having to explain to them why universalism is in my opinion not only wrong but contrary to the idea of God being Love.

If we did use monergism to refer to those who, like John Calvin, believe that not everyone is saved but of those who are saved it is entirely due to God that it happens, we would need a new term to replace monergism in reference to the broader category that encompasses Calvinism and similiar predestination beliefs from antiquity and the reformation, like Zwinglianism and Particular Baptism, but also encompasses Pelagianism and Universalism, which have only one energy. But this would potentially create a problem of Patristic interpretation, in that part of the motivation for the Second Council of Constantinople was to anathematize Universalism, indeed, I think it was more interested in doing something about Universalism than about monergism, since the related Three Chapters issued by Emperor Justinian anathematized Origen for his belief in universal apokatastasis, along with Theodore of Mopsuestia in an attempt to appease the Oriental Orthodox as part of his efforts to reconcile them with the Eastern Orthodox, which failed and led him to kill a large number of Syriac Orthodox bishops, with St. Jacob Baradaeus surviving only because his wife, St. Theodora, was herself an Oriental Orthodox, and also one other person related to Nestorianism, I forget who, but I object to the anathemas against Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia because they died in the peace of the church and I feel it is wrong to declare someone anathema post-mortem; at any rate, no one was anathematized at the Second Council of Constanatinople for holding to Monergism in the style of John Calvin even though there were people who rejected the Orthodox doctrine of synergy, and such a view was anathematized at the council.



*I would note that to my distress the Episcopal Church had a committee about a decade ago conduct a reevaluation of Pelagius to ascertain the positive contributions he made to British Christianity, which fortunately did not result in the rehabilitation of Pelagius within the Episcopal church as there are still enough soteriologically solid Episcopalians to thwart such an error, and we must pray that continues through the efforts of remaining traditionalists like the faculty of the Nashotah House seminary.**

**This is assuming we care about the future of the church which has the largest and best buildings of any in North America and thus attracts a large number of Christians through the overlooked evangelical power of architecture, which is a topic for another thread i intend to post soon, about how church architecture can convert people and for this reason traditionalists need to focus on regaining control of the mainline churches, to get control of their beautiful buildings, and also snap up any disused elegant churches they can, as there are plenty that were sold and turned into restaurants or offices or entertainment venues, and still others which unfortunately have fallen into the hands of non-Christian cults like the Oneness Pentecostals who reject belief in the Trinity.

 

[bbbbbbb]

But St. Augustine wasn’t really a monergist in the pure sense of the word - had he been the Second Council of Constantinople, also known as the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, would likely have anathematized him, as he was at the time not as high profile as he would become, with another Latin monk and fellow anti-Pelagian, St. John Cassian, being as widely read in monasteries at the time as St. Augustine would later become in the West (the Eastern churches continue to embrace St. John Cassian).

Also while I am sympathetic to your argument concerning Calvinism being called Monergism, in that it would allow for greater clarity in talking about the specific doctrines of John Calvin and those Reformed and Presbyterian churches which most closely adhere to his theological concept, there exists a problem, and that is that logically speaking, Pelagianism and Universalism are also forms of Monergism, in that the Pelagian believes that only human energy procures salvation, that we save ourselves on our own, which is obviously the opposite of the Calvinist and Lutheran belief in Soli deo gloria, and which is also rejected as a heresy by nearly everyone else*, and the Universalist believes, like the Calvinist, that all who are saved are saved solely through the efforts of God, but then reject the idea that any will not be saved, which most reject although there are vocal universalists on ChristianForums and elsewhere, and I shall not discuss why I and most others reject it because such a discussion could only happen in Controversial Christian Theology, and frankly I am sick of debating with universalists and having to explain to them why universalism is in my opinion not only wrong but contrary to the idea of God being Love.

If we did use monergism to refer to those who, like John Calvin, believe that not everyone is saved but of those who are saved it is entirely due to God that it happens, we would need a new term to replace monergism in reference to the broader category that encompasses Calvinism and similiar predestination beliefs from antiquity and the reformation, like Zwinglianism and Particular Baptism, but also encompasses Pelagianism and Universalism, which have only one energy. But this would potentially create a problem of Patristic interpretation, in that part of the motivation for the Second Council of Constantinople was to anathematize Universalism, indeed, I think it was more interested in doing something about Universalism than about monergism, since the related Three Chapters issued by Emperor Justinian anathematized Origen for his belief in universal apokatastasis, along with Theodore of Mopsuestia in an attempt to appease the Oriental Orthodox as part of his efforts to reconcile them with the Eastern Orthodox, which failed and led him to kill a large number of Syriac Orthodox bishops, with St. Jacob Baradaeus surviving only because his wife, St. Theodora, was herself an Oriental Orthodox, and also one other person related to Nestorianism, I forget who, but I object to the anathemas against Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia because they died in the peace of the church and I feel it is wrong to declare someone anathema post-mortem; at any rate, no one was anathematized at the Second Council of Constanatinople for holding to Monergism in the style of John Calvin even though there were people who rejected the Orthodox doctrine of synergy, and such a view was anathematized at the council.



*I would note that to my distress the Episcopal Church had a committee about a decade ago conduct a reevaluation of Pelagius to ascertain the positive contributions he made to British Christianity, which fortunately did not result in the rehabilitation of Pelagius within the Episcopal church as there are still enough soteriologically solid Episcopalians to thwart such an error, and we must pray that continues through the efforts of remaining traditionalists like the faculty of the Nashotah House seminary.**

**This is assuming we care about the future of the church which has the largest and best buildings of any in North America and thus attracts a large number of Christians through the overlooked evangelical power of architecture, which is a topic for another thread i intend to post soon, about how church architecture can convert people and for this reason traditionalists need to focus on regaining control of the mainline churches, to get control of their beautiful buildings, and also snap up any disused elegant churches they can, as there are plenty that were sold and turned into restaurants or offices or entertainment venues, and still others which unfortunately have fallen into the hands of non-Christian cults like the Oneness Pentecostals who reject belief in the Trinity.

Thank you. I agree with you concerning Augustine. As we both know, he wrote prolifically, to say the least. Many of his earlier writings contain monergistic ideas which were subsequently developed by others, probably in ways that he would have stridently objected to, such as both Pelagianism and Universalism. I tried to point out that the Augustinian influence early in Martin Luther's life probably affected his monergistic views. In a very real sense, as our friend ViaCrucis has pointed out, Lutheranism is monergistic. From my perspective as a non-Lutheran, I think it is vital that one understands the Lutheran concept of "faith" as not being a conscious, intelligent exercise of the mind, but as a spiritual reality freely given by God through the sacrament of baptism apart from any merit or thought on the part of the individual being baptized.

I grew up in a PCUSA church which was universalist, so I know firsthand the dead end of that theology and, like yourself, have little interest in debating it with its proponents.

Of my more personal interest to myself would be your contributions concerning the effect of architecture on the Christian experience. I see one of the major points of divergence happening at the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. Secondarily, another time of architectural crisis within Christianity came in the nineteenth century when Gothic architecture was revived as the True Christian Architecture by men such as A. W. N. Pugin and which was resisted by the Catholic Church, much to his utter disdain and horror, considering he converted to Catholicism for that very reason.