Arminians and Augustine

[JJB]

In discussions with Arminians I continue to run into this idea that until Augustine all believers were Arminian. Can someone point me to some resources so that I may get a better understanding?

Jon, I know you've 'splained this to me before, but the thread has since rolled off the radar screen.



TIA.

 

[lmnop9876]

In discussions with Arminians I continue to run into this idea that until Augustine all believers were Arminian. Can someone point me to some resources so that I may get a better understanding?

Jon, I know you've 'splained this to me before, but the thread has since rolled off the radar screen.

that's probably correct, I've read that once in a Reformed book on the lives of great saints before. theologians [I stress theologians] (beside St. Paul) hadn't thought through the Gospel message, they were more concerned with the survival of the Church during persecution, and protecting it against heresies about the person of Christ.
however, the majority of preachers probably preached a message of salvation centred around the sovereign grace of God that saves us through faith in Christ. being humble servants of God and His Church, they probably were more concerned with ministering to their flocks than with theological definititions of how the mystery of salvation was worked out.
please, if there's evidence to the contrary, please put it out there, i'm only going off what i've read (in Reformed books).

 

[McWilliams]

that's probably correct, I've read that once in a Reformed book on the lives of great saints before. theologians [I stress theologians] (beside St. Paul) hadn't thought through the Gospel message, they were more concerned with the survival of the Church during persecution, and protecting it against heresies about the person of Christ.
however, the majority of preachers probably preached a message of salvation centred around the sovereign grace of God that saves us through faith in Christ. being humble servants of God and His Church, they probably were more concerned with ministering to their flocks than with theological definititions of how the mystery of salvation was worked out.
please, if there's evidence to the contrary, please put it out there, i'm only going off what i've read (in Reformed books).

Spurgeon said we are all born armenian and remain so until by God's grace we're made calvinists!

 

[Jon_]

In discussions with Arminians I continue to run into this idea that until Augustine all believers were Arminian. Can someone point me to some resources so that I may get a better understanding?

Jon, I know you've 'splained this to me before, but the thread has since rolled off the radar screen.



TIA.

Essentially, we have no evidence that the doctrines of grace were taught or believed anytime between the close of the canon and Augustine. But soteriology was not the only theological doctrine that was neglected, just the most noticable, since it receives so much attention today. There were some scattered opinions on eschatology, but nothing near the codification that we now have. There was no "doctrine" of Sola Scriptura, but the early church fathers were completely assured of the veracity and authenticity of the Bible. Many other doctrines that we now consider essential to Christianity simply were not even considered back then.

Moving back to soteriology, not only is it true we have no evidence of Augustinian predestination among the early church, but most of what they wrote seems to be directly the opposite. Human freedom of the will and the necessity of choice were their primary focus in salvation. No doubt, the early church's evangelizing probably followed the Arminian form quite well: "Choose Christ and he will choose you!" At that time, the philosophical opposition to Christianity would have been underdeveloped as well. Since the early church probably got the idea of human freedom from the Greeks, they were unlikely to have been met with opposition on this front, and in fact we see that their main opponents were not "scientists" and "atheists," but pagans, who desired after other gods. But I thank God that he has faithfully preserved and continually caused the reemergence of the glorifying doctrine of predestination and all that it entails.

In any case, if you are arguing with an Arminian who says that Arminianism must be true because the early church believed it, then their argument is clearly fallacious. The practice of the early church is not the foundation for doctrine. It is the Bible. You might as well argue that every person before the Council of Nicea was a heretic and is in hell because they did not believe in an orthodox formulation of the Trinity. These kinds of arguments simply do not follow.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[JJB]

Essentially, we have no evidence that the doctrines of grace were taught or believed anytime between the close of the canon and Augustine. But soteriology was not the only theological doctrine that was neglected, just the most noticable, since it receives so much attention today. There were some scattered opinions on eschatology, but nothing near the codification that we now have. There was nothing resembling a doctrine of Sola Scriptura, although the early church fathers were completely assured of the veracity and authenticity of the Bible. Many other doctrines that we now consider essential to Christianity simply were not even considered back then.

Moving back to soteriology, not only is it true we have no evidence of Augustinian predestination among the early church, but most of what they wrote seems to be directly the opposite. Human freedom of the will and the necessity of choice were their primary focus in salvation. No doubt, the early church's evangelizing probably followed the Arminian form quite well: "Choose Christ and he will choose you!" At that time, the philosophical opposition to Christianity would have been underdeveloped as well. Since the early church probably got the idea of human freedom from the Greeks, they were unlikely to have been met with opposition on this front, and in fact we see that their main opponents were not "scientists" and "atheists," but pagans, who desired after other gods. But I thank God that he has faithfully preserved and continually caused the reemergence of the glorifying doctrine of predestination and all that it entails.

In any case, if you are arguing with an Arminian who says that Arminianism must be true because the early church believed it, then their argument is clearly fallacious. The practice of the early church is not the foundation for doctrine. It is the Bible. You might as well argue that every person before the Council of Nicea was a heretic and is in hell because they did not believe in an orthodox formulation of the Trinity. These kinds of arguments simply do not follow.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Thanks again, Jon. I'm going to copy and paste this somewhere on my computer, if it's ok with you....

btw, how do you know all this? is it from reading early church fathers, or is there a more concise place to find info like this?

 

[Jon_]

Thanks again, Jon. I'm going to copy and paste this somewhere on my computer, if it's ok with you....

btw, how do you know all this? is it from reading early church fathers, or is there a more concise place to find info like this?

The two best sources of information for early church fathers are J.N.D. Kelly's Early Church Doctrines and, of course, Philip Schaff's magnum opus, Early Church Fathers, which is a 38 volume collection of the writings of church fathers from the close of the apostolic era to the second council of Nicea (ca 787). The first ten volumes of Early Church Fathers are all writings from the ante-Nicene (before Nicea, ca 325) fathers, which would include most of the pertinent writers to the topic at hand. Kelly's work mostly relates to how doctrine and theology developed through the early church fathers, but for that reason is quite good for studies in early church theology.

Oh, and feel free to copy and reuse. Even more, I would encourage you to read some samples from the men yourself, if you find the time. If you have eSword (www.e-sword.net), you can download the first nine volumes of Schaff's Early Church Fathers and read them yourself.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

In post #4 I originally wrote, "There was nothing resembling a doctrine of Sola Scriptura, although the early church fathers were completely assured of the veracity and authenticity of the Bible." Brother Bill (BBAS64) pointed out to me that this is not entirely true and he is absolutely right. I should have read what I wrote twice through before posting it because not even I agree with what I said. I've edited that post to reflect what I meant to say and I'll also state it here: There was no "doctrine" of Sola Scriptura, but the early church fathers were completely assured of the veracity and authenticity of the Bible.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Erinwilcox]

: There was no "doctrine" of Sola Scriptura, but the early church fathers were completely assured of the veracity and authenticity of the Bible.

Yeah. Why would you need to spend time convincing people of something that they already knew to be a fact and the truth? The real question is why do we today need to so aggressively defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? What has changed since that time when it was so universally accepted by Christians?

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Men no longer wish to follow the Bible alone. They would rather surround themselves by teachers who will say exactly what their itching ears want to hear-whether it is scriptural or not.

And going back to the original question from this thread, have you heard the one where all the Arminians claim Spurgeon for their champion against Calvinism? "Spurgeon? A Calvinist? No Way! Spurgeon believed in free will and taught against Calvinism!" is their cry. Boy, some people will twist anything. Since many of them are uninformed, they rely on what their teachers tell them. In a certain church that my aunt and her family were a part of, the pastor preached this long message about, "If you're a Calvinist out there today, get out your scissors and get ready to cut these parts out of your Bibles!" I am not exaggerating. He then proceeded to use the book Spurgeon vs. Hyper Calvinism to prove his point. Spurgeon distinctly said in the passage that he quoted that "Terms are Important Here!" Spurgeon then went on to talk about human RESPONSIBILITY and the difference between that and free will. However, the pastor "forgot" to read the introductional statement and then went on to read about how man is responsible for his own salvation and to claim that was free will-thus Spurgeon was an Arminian. He also used the terms Calvinism and Hyper-calvinism interchangeably. Man is responsible for his own salvation since God commands all men everywhere to repent, but God is responsible for saving man. Funny how people will twist things and take them out of context in order to support a thesis that is faulty in the first place.

 

[BBAS 64]

In post #4 I originally wrote, "There was nothing resembling a doctrine of Sola Scriptura, although the early church fathers were completely assured of the veracity and authenticity of the Bible." Brother Bill (BBAS64) pointed out to me that this is not entirely true and he is absolutely right. I should have read what I wrote twice through before posting it because not even I agree with what I said. I've edited that post to reflect what I meant to say and I'll also state it here: There was no "doctrine" of Sola Scriptura, but the early church fathers were completely assured of the veracity and authenticity of the Bible.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Good Day, Jon

Thanks for that correction, as it is a clearer now. I will to agree that the ECF completely upheld the veracity and authenticy of the Scriptures. The use of "doctrine" is some what confusing when it comes to the idea of Sola Scripture" and dependant on how one defines SS in it's simplest form. In the ECF it is clear that they depended on Scripture to draw clear arguments to write in there day in defense of the Faith delivered to the Saints. I do not see that this was ever questioned back then.

Justin writes:

• Chapter LXXXV.-He Proves that Christ is the Lord of Hosts from Ps. XXIV., and from His Authority Over Demons.

"Moreover, some of you venture to expound the prophecy which runs, `Lift up your gates, ye rulers; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, that the King of glory may enter, '333 as if it referred likewise to Hezekiah, and others of you [expound it] of Solomon; but neither to the latter nor to the former, nor, in short, to any of your kings, can it be proved to have reference, but to this our Christ alone, who appeared without comeliness, and inglorious, as Isaiah and David and all the Scriptures said; who is the Lord of hosts, by the will of the Father who conferred on Him [the dignity]; who also rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven, as the Psalm and the other Scriptures manifested when they announced Him to be Lord of hosts; and of this you may, if you will, easily be persuaded by the occurrences which take place before your eyes. For every demon, when exorcised in the name of this very Son of God-who is the First-born of every creature, who became man by the Virgin, who suffered, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate by your nation, who died, who rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven-is overcome and subdued. But though you exorcise any demon in the name of any of those who were amongst you-either kings, or righteous men, or prophets, or patriarchs-it will not be subject to you. But if any of you exorcise it in [the name of] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, it will perhaps be subject to you. Now assuredly your exorcists, I have said,334 make use of craft when they exorcise, even as the Gentiles do, and employ fumigations and incantations.335 But that they are angels and powers whom the word of prophecy by David [commands] to lift up the gates, that He who rose from the dead, Jesus Christ, the Lord of hosts, according to the will of the Father, might enter, the word of David has likewise showed; which I shall again recall to your attention for the sake of those who were not with us yesterday, for whose benefit, moreover, I sum up many things I said yesterday. And now, if I say this to you, although I have repeated it many times, I know that it is not absurd so to do. For it is a ridiculous thing to see the sun, and the moon, and the other stars, continually keeping the same course, and bringing round the different seasons; and to see the computer who may be asked how many are twice two, because he has frequently said that they are four, not ceasing to say again that they are four; and equally so other things, which are confidently admitted, to be continually mentioned and admitted in like manner; yet that he who founds his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should leave them and abstain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures, because it is thought he can bring forth something better than Scripture. The passage, then, by which I proved that God reveals that there are both angels and hosts in heaven is this: `Praise the Lord from the heavens: praise Him in the highest. Praise Him, all His angels: praise Him, all His hosts.' "336

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325

Which brings about a question:

Justin criticizes those who would "leave" scripture, who wouldn't "constantly" look to it in their arguments. If we can't leave scripture, and we're to look to it constantly, what is that if not sola scriptura?

There are many issues that arrise in the early Church that are addressed on the basis of Scripture, as the authority to resolve issues.

Hippolytus

Roman Catholics tell us that scripture is insufficient, and they often refer to scripture being unclear. We're often told that Trinitarian doctrine, for example, either is unbiblical or is unclear in scripture. But Hippolytus, a church father of the second and third centuries, who lived in Rome, disagreed. In the process of refuting anti-Trinitarian heresies, he advocated sola scriptura and explained that scripture itself (not scripture *and* an infallible interpreter) is sufficient to refute these heresies:

"Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, and lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died....But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner....the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth...The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different mind from them. Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated....The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages [of scripture] by these men, and then to explain their real meaning....For whenever they wish to attempt anything underhand, they mutilate the Scriptures. But let him quote the passage as a whole, and he will discover the reason kept in view in writing it....if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage [of scripture], as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word....Many other passages [of scripture], or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one....What, then, will this Noetus, who knows nothing of the truth, dare to say to these things? And now, as Noetus has been confuted, let us turn to the exhibition of the truth itself, that we may establish the truth, against which all these mighty heresies have arisen without being able to state anything to the purpose. There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9)

The Father will our belief??? That is another Subject

And the list goes on....

** Edit to add**

It is with the upmost respect for you that I post in this thread, may this help us both to learn as we seek to understand. For this issue is very important in our day as some would contend that SS is unworkable and unhistorical.


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All

Thought I would add a few more...

"Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures." (Dionysius of Alexandria, cited in Eusebius, Church History, 7:24)

"we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings...And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?" - Macrina and Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection)

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." (Basil..Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Volume VII, p. 23.)


Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast." St. John Chrysostom, Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96



Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Jon_]

It is with the upmost respect for you that I post in this thread, may this help us both to learn as we seek to understand. For this issue is very important in our day as some would contend that SS is unworkable and unhistorical.

Good stuff, Bill.

I'm beginning to feel like the king of bad examples, lately. Maybe I should stop trying to illustrate what I am saying. From now on, I just say what I mean and let it rest.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Bulldog]

Essentially, we have no evidence that the doctrines of grace were taught or believed anytime between the close of the canon and Augustine.

What exactly was the "close of the canon"?

 

[seekingpurity047]

Paul was a calvinist so was Jesus bahahaha.... yep!

Randy

 

[JJB]

Thank you BBAS for posting those quotes. Thanks, also, Jon as I do have e-sword so I will download the Schaff's ECF.

I appreciate all the input you all have given me. God continues to educate me in two areas that seem to be so prevalent in the church today: Universalism and the false issue of until Augustine there was no such doctrine as Sola Scriptura. I am almost shocked how often they come up in conversations these days and I feel so inadequate.

 

[JJB]

Paul was a calvinist so was Jesus bahahaha.... yep!

Randy

Actually, Randy, this did come to my mind in the sense of Spurgeon's statment about Calvinism being the gospel. Is it as simple as just pointing out Bible verses? It probably is.......I continue to study.

 

[CCWoody]

Having actually read the works of the Apostolic era church fathers (all that I am aware exist) I might actually be in a position to take exception with the Arminian claims that until Augustine everyone was Arminian.

Perhaps by "Arminian" they mean people who believed in Election & Predestination & didn't quite mention "free will" very often. Perhaps that is what they mean by "Arminian."

 

[JJB]

I will have to listen closer, CCWoody. I've been going over the conversations in my mind and am unsure if they are referring to ppl who believed in Election and Predestination.

May I get back to you on that?

 

[CCWoody]

I will have to listen closer, CCWoody. I've been going over the conversations in my mind and am unsure if they are referring to ppl who believed in Election and Predestination.

May I get back to you on that?

Sure. Of course, we do know that there were lots of Pelagian/ semi-Pelagians around. They finally found their hero in Morgan of Wales. Perhaps these are the Arminians they are talking about.

 

[lmnop9876]

Having actually read the works of the Apostolic era church fathers (all that I am aware exist) I might actually be in a position to take exception with the Arminian claims that until Augustine everyone was Arminian.

Perhaps by "Arminian" they mean people who believed in Election & Predestination & didn't quite mention "free will" very often. Perhaps that is what they mean by "Arminian."

i think it was just that they it wasn't an issue they were concerned with until Pelagius came along. in their preaching they probably indicated that they believed in election, it's just that the theologians didn't really think about it too much.

 

[Jon_]

Perhaps by "Arminian" they mean people who believed in Election & Predestination & didn't quite mention "free will" very often. Perhaps that is what they mean by "Arminian."

Some of it might come from reading the modern meaning of terms such as "free will" into the writings of the early fathers, such as Tertullian, who used the term liberally in his writings.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon