Election

[BWV 1080]

The quote below is the best description I have come across on the issue of election and free will. It makes two key points:

1) God initiates our salvation with his previenent grace
2) We must freely assent to accept his grace

...the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.

Any thoughts? Also bonus points if anyone can guess the author.

 

[St. Worm2]

Sounds like the Council of Trent, yes? Not sure who all the authors were.

Just for fun, here are a couple of partial quotes I have stored from the Council of Trent and from the Council of Orange on the same subject matter. Interesting difference. Wonder what changed over the years?

“If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished... let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent .. Canon 5)

"The freedom of will ... was destroyed in the first man." (Council of Orange .. Canon 13)

 

[Abruer17]

I am not too keen, but taking my theology from the Roman Catholic Church may not be the best way to go about it.

 

[nobdysfool]

The quote below is the best description I have come across on the issue of election and free will. It makes two key points:

1) God initiates our salvation with his previenent grace
2) We must freely assent to accept his grace

...the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.

Any thoughts? Also bonus points if anyone can guess the author.

This quote is from the Council of Trent, Sixth session, Chapter 5. This is the position of the Catholic Church, and whether they want to admit it or not, also the position of Arminians and semi-Pelagians, especially this sentence:

that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification...

And when a Calvinist points out that the Arminian position is logically that very statement, they protest that they believe no such thing, yet their theology logically takes them exactly to this point.

And I'm told that I am stating an untruth when I say that Arminians have taken a step or two back toward the Catholic sytem, yet here it is in bllack and white (and green). Somebody either doesn't know the history of their own doctrine, or is intentionally trying to cover an unpleasant and inconvenient truth.

And they wonder why Calvinists get a little testy sometimes when we are opposed by people who claim they don't believe that, yet teach that very thing. If a doctrine is not consistent, it cannot be true, for spiritual things are not -a priori- illogical, nor can they be.

Arminianism cannot stand up under philosophical and logical scrutiny. Calvinism thrives on those aspects, because Calvinism is not only scripturally true, but also logically and philosophically consistent.

 

[BWV 1080]

A couple of points:

Yes, the quote is from the Council of Trent. While Trent categorically denounces semi-pelagianism(that the human will preceeds grace in the order of salvation), some of the Arminian posters on this forum have fallen into this heresy. In RC doctrine, our initial justification (ordinarily received through Baptism) is entirely monergistic. That we must make a free choice to obey and continue in the faith is where RC and Calvinist doctrine diverge. Arminius did obtain most of his views on election and predestination from a trip to Italy where he encountered the work of the Jesuit Molinas. Molinas actually originated the theory of predestination based upon God's foreknowledge and the five points of the remonstrance are virtually idential with Catholic Molinism.


St. Worm, your quotes from the Council of Orange are misleading:

"The freedom of will ... was destroyed in the first man." (Council of Orange .. Canon 13)


Here is the full canon 13:
The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it.


Now Orange was specifically condemning semi-pelagianism. What Canon 13 says is that God's grace (ordinarily recieved through the sacrament of Baptism) proceeds faith, i.e. our initial justification is monergistic. After we are justified we have free will. This is reiterated in Canon 3 in Trent:

[size=-1]CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.[/size]

Canon 5, which you quoted, condemns the Calvinist / Lutheran view of freewill, which is never restored (hence the preserverance of the saints).

 

[St. Worm2]

A couple of points: Yes, the quote is from the Council of Trent. While Trent categorically denounces semi-pelagianism(that the human will preceeds grace in the order of salvation), some of the Arminian posters on this forum have fallen into this heresy. In RC doctrine, our initial justification (ordinarily received through Baptism) is entirely monergistic. That we must make a free choice to obey and continue in the faith is where RC and Calvinist doctrine diverge. Arminius did obtain most of his views on election and predestination from a trip to Italy where he encountered the work of the Jesuit Molinas. Molinas actually originated the theory of predestination based upon God's foreknowledge and the five points of the remonstrance are virtually idential with Catholic Molinism.

Interesting history on Arminius. Thanks!

One or two questions come to mind here: First, you stated that "Semi-Pelagianism" i.e. - "(human will preceeds grace in the order of salvation)", is denounced by the RCC. OK, that works for the first go-round of baptism, but what about the "choice" you spoke of above? Mortal sin kills the soul, and with it sactifying (or saving) grace is also destroyed and lost, so what saves you now? What now 'satisfies' the wrath of Almighty God for the second, third, forth, etc., go-rounds? It's Pennance, right(?), (contrition, confession and satisfaction), an act clearly inititated apart from God's grace by the sinner who wishes to repent, the will of the sinner now preceding grace. I really am just guessing here, but perhaps this is why the RCC is said by many to hold to the doctrine of "Semi-Pelagianism"?

This also brings to mind some questions I have had about Hebrews 6 and 10 concerning losing and regaining salvation, but I'll keep that for another time.

St. Worm, your quotes from the Council of Orange are misleading: "The freedom of will ... was destroyed in the first man." (Council of Orange .. Canon 13)

Here is the full canon 13:
The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it.

Now Orange was specifically condemning semi-pelagianism. What Canon 13 says is that God's grace (ordinarily received through the sacrament of Baptism) proceeds faith...

OK, I don't want to press this too far, but how am I misreading Canon 13 of Orange? I will grant that this Canon talks primarily about God's grace preceding faith. Fine, but does it not also, clearly, state that our "freedom of will was both destroyed (or better, extinguished) and lost in the first man"? How does the primary point of this Canon diminish or change the meaning of these words (that man's will was destroyed/lost in Adam)?

And whether it's about Calvinists, or little green men eating grilled cheese sandwiches on the dark side of the moon, doesn't Canon 5 of Trent say the dead opposite concerning the extent of man's depravity? In "Orange", free will is said to be "lost" since Adam. In "Trent", free will seems to be alive and well and was NEVER "lost". Here they are, together again, this time with the entire Canon 13 of Orange (my emphasis added of course):

"The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it" ... Council of Orange


“If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished... let him be anathema” ...Council of Trent

I truly don't mean to be aggravating, but the words seem simple enough, do they not? From time to time, I can become quite 'block-headed', and I do apologize if that's the case here. So throw me (another?) bone What am I missing?

Yours and His,
David

 

[BWV 1080]

”One or two questions come to mind here: First, you stated that "Semi-Pelagianism" i.e. - "(human will preceeds grace in the order of salvation)", is denounced by the RCC. OK, that works for the first go-round of baptism, but what about the "choice" you spoke of above? Mortal sin kills the soul, and with it sactifying (or saving) grace is also destroyed and lost, so what saves you now? What now 'satisfies' the wrath of Almighty God for the second, third, forth, etc., go-rounds? It's Pennance, right(?), (contrition, confession and satisfaction), an act clearly inititated apart from God's grace by the sinner who wishes to repent, the will of the sinner now preceding grace. I really am just guessing here, but perhaps this is why the RCC is said by many to hold to the doctrine of "Semi-Pelagianism"?”




From Trent, perseverance and repentance are a grace with which we must freely cooperate:

CHAPTER XIII.

On the gift of Perseverance.

So also as regards the gift of perseverance, of which it is written, He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved:-which gift cannot be derived from any other but Him, who is able to establish him who standeth that he stand perseveringly, and to restore him who falleth:-let no one herein promise himself any thing as certain with an absolute certainty; though all ought to place and repose a most firm hope in God's help. For God, unless men be themselves wanting to His grace, as he has begun the good work, so will he perfect it, working (in them) to will and to accomplish.

This harmonizes with the following paragraph that concludes Orange:

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness.




”OK, I don't want to press this too far, but how am I misreading Canon 13 of Orange? I will grant that this Canon talks primarily about God's grace preceding faith. Fine, but does it not also, clearly, state that our "freedom of will was both destroyed (or better, extinguished) and lost in the first man"? How does the primary point of this Canon diminish or change the meaning of these words (that man's will was destroyed/lost in Adam)? “





From the concluding paragraphs of Orange:



The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God.

This is a more explicit explanation of what Canon 13 refers to when it says free will has been destroyed and the statement must be understood in this context. This is the same definition Trent uses below:



On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.

The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

 

[St. Worm2]

From the concluding paragraphs of Orange:

The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God.

This is a more explicit explanation of what Canon 13 refers to when it says free will has been destroyed and the statement must be understood in this context. This is the same definition Trent uses below:

On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.

The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

Thanks for getting this for me BWV This certainly helps me see a harmony between the two Councils. However, depending upon which way one 'reads between the lines', I also see support for the original position that my quotes (see again below and in bold above) seemed to point out. "Orange" seems to be saying that man's liberty was indeed destroyed, but "Trent" points out that this was never the case. That even though man's free will had been so "attenuated" and "bent down" that we had lost our innocence and were by nature, children of wrath, Trent says our free will "was by no means extinguished" in us (again, look above in bold and below at the original post). In Orange, it seems the intervention of God is required to free men's captive will's to such a point, yes?

"The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it" ... Council of Orange

“If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished... let him be anathema” ...Council of Trent

Again, thanks BWV. Though I don't see a complete "harmony" here, I do see how a slightly more incomplete harmony seems plausible from a certain point of view. On to other things, yes! I do have some other thoughts I would love to have your input on (such as RE-justification in light of Hebrews 6 and 10, and a little about "Legal Fictions" and justification). Perhaps another thread would be best?

Yours and His,
David

 

[BWV 1080]

However, depending upon which way one 'reads between the lines', I also see support for the original position that my quotes (see again below and in bold above) seemed to point out. "Orange" seems to be saying that man's liberty was indeed destroyed, but "Trent" points out that this was never the case. That even though man's free will had been so "attenuated" and "bent down" that we had lost our innocence and were by nature, children of wrath, Trent says our free will "was by no means extinguished" in us (again, look above in bold and below at the original post). In Orange, it seems the intervention of God is required to free men's captive will's to such a point, yes?



I agree that it is not exactly clear, but I do not believe Orange intended to contradict the early fathers who talk extensively on free will. No father states free will in the Pelagian or semi-Pelagian sense that we can “pull ourselves up by our bootstraps” but they do stress our cooperation with God’s grace:

Justin Martyr​

CHAP. CXLI.--FREE-WILL IN MEN AND ANGELS.

"But that you may not have a pretext for saying that Christ must have been crucified, and that those who transgressed must have been among your nation, and that the matter could not have been otherwise, I said briefly by anticipation, that God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless we repent beforehand. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so."

​

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV​

Chapter XXXVII.-Men are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It is Not True, Therefore, that Some are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.

2. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it,-….

Chapter XXXIX.-Man is Endowed with the Faculty of Distinguishing Good and Evil; So That, Without Compulsion, He Has the Power, by His Own Will and Choice, to Perform God's Commandments, by Doing Which He Avoids the Evils Prepared for the Rebellious.

1. Man has received the knowledge of good and evil. It is good to obey God, and to believe in Him, and to keep His commandment, and this is the life of man; as not to obey God is evil, and this is his death. Since God, therefore, gave [to man] such mental power (magnanimitatem) man knew both the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience, that the eye of the mind, receiving experience of both, may with judgment make choice of the better things; and that he may never become indolent or neglectful of God's command; and learning by experience that it is an evil thing which deprives him of life, that is, disobedience to God, may never attempt it at all, but that, knowing that what preserves his life, namely, obedience to God, is good, he may diligently keep it with all earnestness.

Augustine goes on to say:

Do we then “make void” freedom of choice through grace? “God forbid! yea, we establish” freedom of choice. As the law is not made void by faith, so freedom of choice is not made void but established by grace. Freedom of choice is necessary to the fulfilment of the law. But by the law comes knowledge of sin; by faith comes the obtaining of grace against sin; by grace comes the healing of the soul from sin’s sickness; by the healing of the soul comes freedom of choice; by freedom of choice comes love of righteousness; by the love of righteousness comes the working of the law. And thus, as the law is not made void but established by faith, since faith obtains the grace whereby the law may be fulfilled, so freedom of choice is not made void but established by grace, since grace heals the will whereby righteousness may be freely loved ... Why then must wretched men be bold to vaunt themselves either of their freedom of choice before they are made free, or of their own strength, if the freedom has been given them? Why will they not hear in the very words “freedom of choice” the meaning of liberty? ... How if they are slaves to sin, can they boast freedom of choice?





Again, thanks BWV. Though I don't see a complete "harmony" here, I do see how a slightly more incomplete harmony seems plausible from a certain point of view. On to other things, yes! I do have some other thoughts I would love to have your input on (such as RE-justification in light of Hebrews 6 and 10, and a little about "Legal Fictions" and justification). Perhaps another thread would be best?



Sure, I am probably not the best person to exposit on Hebrews but it would be an interesting and educational discussion.

Steve

 

[christian-only]

Sounds like the Council of Trent, yes? Not sure who all the authors were.

Just for fun, here are a couple of partial quotes I have stored from the Council of Trent and from the Council of Orange on the same subject matter. Interesting difference. Wonder what changed over the years?

“If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished... let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent .. Canon 5)

"The freedom of will ... was destroyed in the first man." (Council of Orange .. Canon 13)

I don't see how anyone could say that freedom of will was destroyed in Adam. In all actuallity, he had more choices to make after the fall. Before the fall he just had to choose whether to eat the fruit or not. Now he has to choose whether to be naked or not too! Freedom of will gone? Certainly not.

 

[Abruer17]

With our free will destroyed we still have choices to make. Sadly, we as fallen creatures will make them based on "vain imaginations of the heart."

 

[St. Worm2]

Hi Steve, sorry to take so long to return to this thread, but there were a couple of threads in another section that I felt I needed to participate in. Anyhoo, you wrote:

I agree that it is not exactly clear, but I do not believe Orange intended to contradict the early fathers who talk extensively on free will. No father states free will in the Pelagian or semi-Pelagian sense that we can “pull ourselves up by our bootstraps” but they do stress our cooperation with God’s grace:

Justin Martyr​

CHAP. CXLI.--FREE-WILL IN MEN AND ANGELS.

"But that you may not have a pretext for saying that Christ must have been crucified, and that those who transgressed must have been among your nation, and that the matter could not have been otherwise, I said briefly by anticipation, that God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless we repent beforehand. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so."

The idea that God created men free is basic Christian orthodoxy. I don't believe many within any branch of orthodox Christendom would take exception to Martyr's words here (though I think the personification of the Bible (i.e. "it foreknew") is a little weird ;-)

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV​

Chapter XXXVII.-Men are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It is Not True, Therefore, that Some are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.

2. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it,-

Chapter XXXIX.-Man is Endowed with the Faculty of Distinguishing Good and Evil; So That, Without Compulsion, He Has the Power, by His Own Will and Choice, to Perform God's Commandments, by Doing Which He Avoids the Evils Prepared for the Rebellious.

1. Man has received the knowledge of good and evil. It is good to obey God, and to believe in Him, and to keep His commandment, and this is the life of man; as not to obey God is evil, and this is his death. Since God, therefore, gave [to man] such mental power (magnanimitatem) man knew both the good of obedience and the evil of disobedience, that the eye of the mind, receiving experience of both, may with judgment make choice of the better things; and that he may never become indolent or neglectful of God's command; and learning by experience that it is an evil thing which deprives him of life, that is, disobedience to God, may never attempt it at all, but that, knowing that what preserves his life, namely, obedience to God, is good, he may diligently keep it with all earnestness.

Wow, I hardly know where to begin. I am hoping that the plain meaning of these words are not what the author (Irenaeus) intended! I might even go so far as to say that some of this, particularly #XXXIX, borders on being disturbing.

What has happened to the "Fall"? In this, Irenaeus has chosen not to 'whitewash' but to utterly deny it, has he not? Was he Pelagius' principle mentor!!? Again he writes:

Man is Endowed with the Faculty of Distinguishing Good and Evil; So That, Without Compulsion, He Has the Power, by His Own Will and Choice, to Perform God's Commandments...

If this is true, what need have we for Grace (or for a Savior for that matter)? Irenaeus teaches that we can choose the good, choose to obey God and His commandments, and are endowed with a "Free Will" and good "Nature" such that we can assent, APART from (or at least prior to) God's grace, to do what/all God intends us to do. But what of the Bible? What does it say about our "Freedom", our "Nature" apart from God. Here are a couple of passages:

"You were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest." Ephesians 2:1-3

Both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one." Romans 3:9b-12

Do you hold to these teachings of Irenaeus, Steve? Does the RCC officially do so as well? Am I missing something again? Does not Irenaeus seem to be setting aside the clear meaning of the Scriptures here to fulfill what appears to be a Pelagius-like agenda?

Let me know as time allows.

--David
p.s. - I had no problem with the quote from Augustine.

 

[BWV 1080]

Wow, I hardly know where to begin. I am hoping that the plain meaning of these words are not what the author (Irenaeus) intended! I might even go so far as to say that some of this, particularly #XXXIX, borders on being disturbing.



I think you are just taking the quotes out of context. No reputable scholar, Protestant or Catholic has ever, to my knowledge, impugned Irenaeus’s orthodoxy. He was one of the most important ECF’s, linked to the Apostle John through Polycarp’s tutilage.

Some of the important issues in comparing Orange and Trent is knowing which end of the freewill / predestination spectrum the heresy being attacked was coming from. Orange was defending orthodoxy from a “left-wing” attack from Pelagius while Trent was setting the “right-wing” boundary in response to Calvin. Irenaeus was attacking "right-wing" Gnostics and other heretics that all held a rigidly deterministic view of Man’s actions that clouded any notions of moral responsibility.

What has happened to the "Fall"? In this, Irenaeus has chosen not to 'whitewash' but to utterly deny it, has he not? Was he Pelagius' principle mentor!!?
Here it is:

3. The Lord, indeed, sowed good seed in His own field;(5) and He says, "The field is the world." But while men slept, the enemy came, and "sowed tares in the midst of the wheat, and went his way."(6) Hence we learn that this was the apostate angel and the enemy, because he was envious of God's workmanship, and took in hand to render this [workmanship] an enmity with God. For this cause also God has banished from His presence him who did of his own accord stealthily sow the tares, that is, him who brought about the transgression;(7) but He took compassion upon man, who, through want of care no doubt, but still wickedly [on the part of another], became involved in disobedience; AH 4.30.3


If this is true, what need have we for Grace (or for a Savior for that matter)? Irenaeus teaches that we can choose the good, choose to obey God and His commandments, and are endowed with a "Free Will" and good "Nature" such that we can assent, APART from (or at least prior to) God's grace, to do what/all God intends us to do. But what of the Bible?

Irenaeus does not teach this.

FOR in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person "knew the mind of the Lord," or who else "has become His counsellor?" Against Heresies 5.1.1

The Lord taught us that no one is able to know God unless taught by God. God cannot be known without the help of God. Man cannot see God on his own. If God wills to be seen he will be seen by those to whom he wills to be seen, when he wills, and in what way he wills
[font=TimesNewRoman,Italic]Against Heresies 4.6.4-5[/font]


Also Romans 1:18-32 God has written His law on our hearts

 

[BWV 1080]

Do you hold to these teachings of Irenaeus, Steve? Does the RCC officially do so as well? Am I missing something again? Does not Irenaeus seem to be setting aside the clear meaning of the Scriptures here to fulfill what appears to be a Pelagius-like agenda?



A good summary:

Catholic Predestination - Ludwig Ott​

Introduction​

The Catholic Church, following St. Augustine (e.g., Grace and Free Will, 1,1; Sermon 169, 11,13), accepts predestination of the elect to heaven, but also affirms the freedom of the human will, thus staking out a position distinct from Calvinism. Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man's free will, and foreseen sins, so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double predestination is rejected).

God is sovereign, in our view, every bit as much as in Protestantism (particularly Calvinism), as will amply be demonstrated below. All that is disputed are the intricacies of the grace / free will antinomy, which is one of the most mysterious and difficult questions in the history of both Christian theology and theistic philosophy. Of course, the allowance of free will is also present in Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, most charismatic, non-denominational and Baptist theologies, etc.

The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a de fide dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty), while at the same time affirming free will and the possibility of falling away from the faith. The following material from Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974 {orig. 1952}, pp.242-45) ought to be most helpful for Protestants seeking to understand what Catholics believe about this ever-mysterious, controversial, complex, highly abstract theological question:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

1) GOD, BY HIS ETERNAL RESOLVE OF WILL, HAS PREDETERMINED CERTAIN MEN TO ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS (De fide)

[ De fide = "of faith" - dogmas are absolutely binding on all Catholics]​

This doctrine is proposed by the Ordinary and General Teaching of the Church as a truth of Revelation. The doctrinal definitions of the Council of Trent presuppose it . . . The reality of Predestination is clearly attested to in Rom 8:29 et seq: . . . cf. Mt 25:34, Jn 10:27 et seq., Acts 13:48, Eph 1:4 et seq. . . . Predestination is a part of the Eternal Divine Plan of Providence.

2) BASIS OF PREDESTINATION

a) The Problem

The main difficulty . . . lies in the question whether God's eternal resolve of Predestination has been taken with or without consideration of the merits of the man (postor ante praevisa merita).

Only incomplete Predestination to grace is independent of every merit (ante praevisa merita), as the first grace cannot be merited. In the same way, complete Predestination to grace and glory conjointly is independent of every merit, as the first grace cannot be merited, and the consequent graces, as well as the merits acquired with these graces and their reward, depend like the links of a chain, on the first grace . . .

b) Attempts at Solution

The Thomists, the Augustinians, the majority of the Scotists and also individual older Molinists (Suarez, St. Bellarmine) teach an absolute Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), therefore ante praevisa merita. According to them, God freely resolves from all Eternity, without consideration of the merits of man's grace, to call certain men to beatification and therefore to bestow on them graces which will infallibly secure the execution of the Divine Decree (ordo intentionis). In time God first gives to the predestined effective graces and then eternal bliss as a reward for the merits which flow from their free cooperation with grace (ordo executionis). The ordo intentionis and the ordo executionis are in inverse relation to each other (glory-grace; grace-glory).

Most of the Molinists, and also St. Francis de Sales (+1622), teach a conditioned Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), that is, postand propter praevisa merita. According to them, God by His scientia media, sees beforehand how men would freely react to various orders of grace. In the light of this knowledge He chooses, according to His free pleasure a fixed and definite order of grace. Now by His scientia visionis, He knows infallibly in advance what use the individual man will make of the grace bestowed on him. He elects for eternal bliss those who by virtue of their foreseen merits perseveringly cooperate with grace, while He determines for eternal punishment of hell, those who, on account of their foreseen demerits, deny their cooperation. The ordo intentionis and the ordo executionis coincide (grace-glory; grace-glory).

Both attempts at explanation are ecclesiastically permissible. The scriptural proofs are not decisive for either side. The Thomists quote above all passages from the Letter to the Romans, in which the Divine factor in salvation is brought strongly to the foreground (Rom 8:29; 9:11-13, 9:20 et seq.) . . . The Molinists invoke the passages which attest the universality of the Divine desire for salvation, especially 1 Tim 2:4, as well as the sentence to be pronounced by the Judge of the World (Mt 25:34-36), in which the works of mercy are given as ground for the acceptance into the Heavenly Kingdom. But that these are also the basis for the 'preparation' for the Kingdom, that is, for the eternal resolve of Predestination, cannot be definitely proved from them . . .

While the pre-Augustinian tradition is in favour of the Molinistic explanation, St. Augustine, at least in his later writings, is more in favour of the Thomistic explanation. The Thomist view emphasizes God's universal causality while the other view stresses the universality of the Divine salvific will, man's freedom and his cooperation in his salvation. The difficulties remaining on both sides prove that Predestination even for reason enlightened by faith, is an unfathomable mystery (Rom 11:33 ff.).

3) PROPERTIES OF PREDESTINATION

a) Immutability

The resolve of Predestination, as an act of the divine knowledge and will, is as immutable as the Divine Essence itself. The number of those who are registered in the Book of Life (Phil 4:3, Rev 17:8; cf. Lk 10:20) is formally and materially fixed, that is, God knows and determines with infallible certainty in advance, how many and which men will be saved . . .

b) Uncertainty

The Council of Trent declared against Calvin, that certainty in regard to one's Predestination can be attained by special Revelation only . . . Holy Scripture enjoins man to work out his salvation in fear and trembling (Phil 2:12). He who imagines that he will stand should take care lest he fall (1 Cor 10:12). In spite of this uncertainty there are signs of Predetermination which indicate a high probability of one's Predestination, e.g., a persevering practice of the virtues recommended in the Eight Beatitudes, frequent reception of Holy Communion, active love of one's neighbor, love for Christ and for the Church . . .

[For scriptural proofs against absolute assurance of salvation I submit the following passages: 1 Cor 9:27, 10:12, Gal 5:1,4, Phil 3:11-14, 1 Tim 4:1, 5:15, Heb 3:12-14, 6:4-6, 2 Pet 2:15,20-21. These I consider the most compelling, but there are many others as well: e.g.: 1 Sam 11:6, 18:11-12, Ezek 18:24, 33:12-13,18, Gal 4:9, Col 1:23, Heb 6:11-12, 10:23,26,29,36,39, 12:15, Rev 2:4-5.]

[Many evangelical Protestants claim to have an absolute "assurance," but when all is said and done, both biblically and epistemologically, they simply can't attain to this certitude, and are no more "certain" than a devout Catholic or Orthodox is. Such claims are simply unproven and unprovable. In other words, Protestant "assurance" involves the following "argument" in a vicious circle: in order to possess assurance of salvation you must believe that you have salvation. This has been called "fiducial faith," and is completely subjective, every bit as much as the Mormon "burning in the bosom." Martin Luther himself illustrates the incoherence of this innovation:

We must day by day struggle towards greater and greater certainty . . . Everyone should therefore accustom himself resolutely to the persuasion that he is in a state of grace . . . Should he feel a doubt, then let him exercise faith; he must beat down his doubts and acquire certainty . . . The matter of justification is difficult and delicate, not indeed in itself, for in itself it is as certain as can be, but in our regard; of this I have frequent experience.

{In Hartmann Grisar, Luther, London: 1917, v.4, pp.437-443} ]

4) CONCEPT AND REALITY OF REPROBATION

By Reprobation is understood the eternal Resolve of God's Will to exclude certain rational creatures from eternal bliss. While God, by His grace, positively cooperates in the supernatural merits, which lead to beatification, He merely permits sin, which leads to eternal damnation.

Regarding the content of the resolve of Reprobation, a distinction is made between positive and negative Reprobation, according as the Divine resolve of Reprobation has for its object condemnation to the eternal punishment of hell, or exclusion from the Beatific Vision. Having regard to the reason for Reprobation, a distinction is made between conditioned and unconditioned (absolute) Reprobation, insofar as the Divine resolve of Reprobation is dependent on, or independent of the prevision of future demerits.

GOD, BY AN ETERNAL RESOLVE OF HIS WILL, PREDESTINES CERTAIN MEN, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR FORESEEN SINS, TO ETERNAL REJECTION (De fide)

The reality of Reprobation is not formally defined, but it is the general teaching of the Church.

5) POSITIVE REPROBATION

Heretical Predestinationism in its various forms (the Southern Gallic priest Lucidus in the 5th century; the monk Gottschalk in the 9th century, according to reports of his opponents, which, however, find no confirmation in his recently re-discovered writings; Wycliffe, Hus, and esp. Calvin), teaches a positive predetermination to sin, and an unconditional Predestination to the eternal punishment of hell, that is, without consideration of future demerits. This was rejected as false doctrine by the Particular Synods of Orange, Quiercy & Valence and by the Council of Trent. Unconditioned positive Reprobation leads to a denial of the universality of the Divine Desire for salvation, and of the Redemption, and contradicts the Justice and Holiness of God as well as the freedom of man.

According to the teaching of the Church, there is a conditioned positive Reprobation, that is, it occurs with consideration of foreseen future demerits (post et propter praevisa demerita). The conditional nature of Positive Reprobation is demanded by the generality of the Divine Resolve of salvation. This excludes God's desiring in advance the damnation of certain men (cf. 1 Tim 2:4, Ezek 33:11, 2 Pet 3:9) . . .

6) NEGATIVE REPROBATION

In the question of Reprobation, the Thomist view favours not an absolute, but only a negative Reprobation. This is conceived by most Thomists as non-election to eternal bliss (non-electio), together with the Divine resolve to permit some rational creatures to fall into sin, and thus by their own guilt to lose eternal salvation. In contrast to the absolute Positive Reprobation of the Predestinarians, Thomists insist on the universality of the Divine Resolve of Salvation and Redemption, the allocation of sufficient graces to the reprobate, and the freedom of man's will. However, it is difficult to find an intrinsic concordance between unconditioned non-election and the universality of the Divine Resolve of salvation. In practice, the unconditioned negative Reprobation of the Thomists involves the same result as the unconditioned positive Reprobation of the heretical Predestinarians, since outside Heaven and Hell there is no third final state.

Like the Resolve of Predestination the Divine Resolve of Reprobation is immutable, but, without special revelation, its incidence is unknown to men.

 

[Commoner]

The quote below is the best description I have come across on the issue of election and free will. It makes two key points:

1) God initiates our salvation with his previenent grace
2) We must freely assent to accept his grace

...the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.

Any thoughts? Also bonus points if anyone can guess the author.

It is quite simple. One becomes Elect when one is in the Elect One of God just as one becomes a son of God when one is in the Son of God. Only by union with Christ does one become Elect.

We humans are flesh and it is our flesh which is in bondage to sin. God who is Spirit calls to our spirit to say yes. Nothing more complicated to it than that.

But some resort to vain philosophies.

Commoner

 

[Commoner]

The quote below is the best description I have come across on the issue of election and free will. It makes two key points:

1) God initiates our salvation with his previenent grace
2) We must freely assent to accept his grace

...the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.

Any thoughts? Also bonus points if anyone can guess the author.

It is quite simple. One becomes Elect when one is in the Elect One of God just as one becomes a son of God when one is in the Son of God. Only by union with Christ does one become Elect and one is not in union with Christ until an Ephesians 2:8 event occurs. Christ is THE Chosen One of God, not one of the chosen ones. He is the ark of our salvation God chose by which we can be saved.

We humans are flesh and it is human flesh which is in bondage to sin. God who is Spirit calls to our spirit to say yes. Nothing more complicated to it than that.

But some resort to vain philosophies.

Commoner

 

[nobdysfool]

It is quite simple. One becomes Elect when one is in the Elect One of God just as one becomes a son of God when one is in the Son of God. Only by union with Christ does one become Elect and one is not in union with Christ until an Ephesians 2:8 event occurs. Christ is THE Chosen One of God, not one of the chosen ones. He is the ark of our salvation God chose by which we can be saved.

We humans are flesh and it is human flesh which is in bondage to sin. God who is Spirit calls to our spirit to say yes. Nothing more complicated to it than that.

But some resort to vain philosophies.

Commoner

Another Calvin-hater. Election is before the foundation of the world. It's obvious that you believe in "corporate election", and not individual election. This despite the fact that the vast majority of times the Elect are mentioned in scripture, it is obviously plural, meaning many, and Paul clearly states in Romans that the elect are those who have been predestined, called and justified by Christ. Those are individuals, and their predestination, calling, justification and Election are by God's decree, not by man's decision.

God's call to man is specific and efficacious. In order for man to respond, he must first be capable of responding, and no man is born with that capability, it must first be given to him by God. The Reformed doctrines spell out specifically and clearly how this happens. It is not vain philosophy, it is the Word of God.

 

[BWV 1080]

It is quite simple. One becomes Elect when one is in the Elect One of God just as one becomes a son of God when one is in the Son of God. Only by union with Christ does one become Elect and one is not in union with Christ until an Ephesians 2:8 event occurs. Christ is THE Chosen One of God, not one of the chosen ones. He is the ark of our salvation God chose by which we can be saved.

We humans are flesh and it is human flesh which is in bondage to sin. God who is Spirit calls to our spirit to say yes. Nothing more complicated to it than that.

But some resort to vain philosophies.

Commoner

Ah, I see. Your interpetation of Holy Scripture is the pure unadulterated Word of God and mine is just vain philosophy. Thanks for enlightening me.

 

[Commoner]

Another Calvin-hater. Election is before the foundation of the world.

Sorry but Ephesians 1:4 does not say, "He chose us before the foundaiton of the world."

Does it?

It's obvious that you believe in "corporate election", and not individual election.

No, that would be your misguided false dilemma.

This despite the fact that the vast majority of times the Elect are mentioned in scripture, it is obviously plural, meaning many,

Um yeah. There are many of God's people in Christ.

and Paul clearly states in Romans that the elect are those who have been predestined, called and justified by Christ.

No it doesn't. Try again and this time don't add words to Rom 8:29-30.

Those are individuals, and their predestination, calling, justification and Election are by God's decree, not by man's decision.

Yes the Elect are individuals. They are a bunch of individuals united to the Elect One of God. That's why they are Elect. Same reason they are sons of God.

God's call to man is specific and efficacious.

Insisting upon false doctrines will not make them true.

In order for man to respond, he must first be capable of responding, and no man is born with that capability,

Pure unBiblical Calvinist fantasy.

it must first be given to him by God.

Pure invention.

The Reformed doctrines spell out specifically and clearly how this happens.

The Reformed doctrine is a pack of misguided lies.

It is not vain philosophy, it is the Word of God.

The Word of God is Christ.

Commoner

 

[BBAS 64]

Sorry but Ephesians 1:4 does not say, "He chose us before the foundaiton of the world."

Does it?

Good Day, Commoner


Eph 1:4

(ALT) just as He chose us in Him before [the] laying of the foundation of the world [or, before beginning of the creation of the universe], so that we shall be holy and unblemished [fig., without fault] before Him, in love,

(ASV) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:

(ESV) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

(GB) As hee hath chosen vs in him, before the foundation of the worlde, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in loue:

(GNT) kaqwv ecelecato hmav en autw pro katabolhv kosmou einai hmav agiouv kai amwmouv katenwpion autou en agaph

Think you may be pointing to the text as seen "in Him", would you explain how that prep. phase is used in relation to "us He hath choosen"? At what point in time is that prep phase "in Him" seen as a condition to the "us" that he chose.

No it doesn't. Try again and this time don't add words to Rom 8:29-30.

Rom 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Rom 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

Rom 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.


Would you please exergete this passage.

Yes the Elect are individuals. They are a bunch of individuals united to the Elect One of God. That's why they are Elect. Same reason they are sons of God.



Insisting upon false doctrines will not make them true.



Pure unBiblical Calvinist fantasy.



Pure invention.



The Reformed doctrine is a pack of misguided lies.



The Word of God is Christ.

Commoner

Wishing I had Augustine's work on this passage Romans, most of what you typed here are mearly your own opinions. Serious lacking any historical knowledge of the texts nor the historical nauture of the issuses addressed with in the Reformation.

I would say you have lots of explaining to make your points relative to the discussion here.

Augustine from the Enchiridion:



CHAP. 30.--MEN ARE NOT SAVED BY GOOD WORKS, NOR BY THE FREE DETERMINATION OF THEIR OWN WILL, BUT BY THE GRACE OF GOD THROUGH FAITH. But this part of the human race to which God has promised pardon and a share in His eternal kingdom, can they be restored through the merit of their own works? God forbid. For what good work can a lost man perform, except so far as he has been delivered from perdition? Can they do anything by the free determination of their own will? Again I say, God forbid. For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost. "For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." This is the judgment of the Apostle Peter. And as it is certainly true, what kind of liberty, I ask, can the bond-slave possess, except when it pleases him to sin? For he is freely in bondage who does with pleasure the will of his master. Accordingly, he who is the servant of sin is free to sin. And hence he will not be free to do right, until, being freed from sin, he shall begin to be the servant of righteousness. And this is true liberty, for he has pleasure in the righteous deed; and it is at the same time a holy bondage, for he is obedient to the will of God. But whence comes this liberty to do right to the man who is in bondage and sold under sin, except he be redeemed by Him who has said, "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed?" And before this redemption is wrought in a man, when he is not yet free to do what is right, how can he talk of the freedom of his will and his good works, except he be inflated by that foolish pride of boasting which the apostle restrains when he says, "By grace are ye saved, through faith."

Peace to u,

Bill