Is Jesus the Savior of the Whole World?

[DeaconDean]

I'm reading through this, and the first I see Clement speaking of the requirement of salvation is this:

1 Clem. 5:6 having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he [Paul] had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.

Several times Clement speaks of the "elect", now if in your opinion this does not speak of predestination, then that is only your opinion.

Justin Martyr also speaks of the "elect" saying:

This ancient and valuable Christian writer not only speaks of the people of God under the title and appellation of the elect,as he does at the close of an epistle[11] of his to some persons for whom he prays, that "the Lord of glory, who exists for ever, would give to them all to enjoy honor and rest meta twn eklektwn, with the elect;" but he also speaks of them as a special people, selected out of every nation, and as a fixed number to be completed. In one place, disputing with Trypho the Jew, he has these words:[12] "God, out of all nations, took your nation to himself, a nation unprofitable, disobedient, and unfaithful; thereby pointing out touv apo pantov genouv airoumenouv, those that are chosen out of every nation to obey his will, by Christ, whom also he calls Jacob, and names Israel."

[11] Epist. ad Zeuam et Sereu. p. 515.​

[12] Dialog. cum Tryph, 359, 360.

Source​

Tertullian says:​

And in another place,[3]treating of heretics, he says, their were wits of spiritual wickedness, with whom we and the brethren wrestle; the necessary articles of faith merit our contemplation, ut electi manifestentur, ut reprobi detegantur;that the elect may be manifested, that the reprobate may be detected."..Wherefore all flesh is grass,quae igni destinatur, which is appointed to the fire, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God;quae saluti ordinatur, which is ordained to salvation."And as he says upon another account,[5]"there can be no election without reprobation." He has indeed a passage, which seems to make election dependent upon the works of men; his words are these,[6]"What man is there without sin that God should always choose him whom he never could refuse? Or who likewise without any good work, that God should always refuse him, whom he never could choose? Show a man that is always good, and he will not be refused; show one that is always evil, and he will never be chosen."

[3] De Praescript. Haeret. c. 38, p. 246.

[5] Ad Nationes, 50:1, c. 10. p. 55.

[6] Adv. Marcion. 50:2, c. 23, p. 471​

​

Source​

Rant and rave all you want, but:

God Bless​

Till all are one.​

​

 

[sculleywr]

God Bless

Till all are one.

Well, if you would like to, I don't know, actually READ the letter, instead of quoting it second-hand, you might actually know what he was saying. If I were to read what people said about the Bible without reading it, I would be foolish. Why should you do the same with Clement?

 

[DeaconDean]

Well, if you would like to, I don't know, actually READ the letter, instead of quoting it second-hand, you might actually know what he was saying. If I were to read what people said about the Bible without reading it, I would be foolish. Why should you do the same with Clement?

Before you sling mud, you should know that unlike most, I have taken the time to read 1 & 2 Clement.

And besides, we are talking matters of theology, Soteriology in particular, so it is not right or prudent for me to quote theologians?

But it is perfectly alright for you to quote the ECF's?

Hello pot, this is kettle.

Why don't you follow your own advice and read what the Reformers said?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[sculleywr]

Several times Clement speaks of the "elect", now if in your opinion this does not speak of predestination, then that is only your opinion.

Justin Martyr also speaks of the "elect" saying:

Source​

Tertullian says:​

Source​

Rant and rave all you want, but:

God Bless​

Till all are one.​

[/LEFT]

and yet I have quoted all three where they mention synergism. The only meaning of elect is referring to the Church, and NEVER to individuals. You are OF the elect. You are not yourself elect.

Finally, all three said that if predestination were true, then there is no, I repeat, NO salvation based on true justice. For justice is a man receiving what he deserves. If a man does not have the ability to accept or reject Christ, then he does not receive what he deserves and God is not just.

Finally, you forgot this:

Justin Martyr:
But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made. (First Apology, Chapter XLIII [complete]; ANF, Vol. I)

Tertullian

(specifically describing the inevitable result of predestination)

For this reason it is that they neither regard works as necessary for themselves, nor do they observe any of the calls of duty, eluding even the necessity of martyrdom on any pretence which may suit their pleasure. (Against the Valentinians, XXIX-XXX)

and this IS the teaching of the Apostles. You can take their descriptions of heretical doctrines and rip them out of their original context. But when you quote the writings second hand, you wind up running into poles like this guy:

News Reporter runs in to a pole! - YouTube

 

[DeaconDean]

You are not yourself elect.

I was born-again in 1974, blood bought and cleased by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes, I am one of the "elect".

By the very dictates of my doctrinal convictions, I am.

Now you say I am not.

This is tanamount to saying I am not Christian.

I will not stand for such insults.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[sculleywr]

Before you sling mud, you should know that unlike most, I have taken the time to read 1 & 2 Clement.

And besides, we are talking matters of theology, Soteriology in particular, so it is not right or prudent for me to quote theologians?

But it is perfectly alright for you to quote the ECF's?

Hello pot, this is kettle.

Why don't you follow your own advice and read what the Reformers said?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Why don't you take them into context instead of misquoting or twisting them into weird orders. My nickname for John Gill's references is the Clement switchback. Why not go in logical front to back order and include the context of the fact that he wasn't even talking about soteriology as a topic? Pick a guy who actually spoke of soteriology as a topic, rather than reprimanding people for immoral behavior.

Misquoting the Fathers is not quoting or respecting them. If you need to re-order their sayings and remove the context of the fact that they also describe the heretical view, you need to reevaluate your methodology.

Or are you going to imitate the Calvinist on this forum who ran around saying that I believe that Christ isn't God and that I think the Bible is not of authority because I referred to what Arius taught to compare it to the Apostolic view?

 

[DeaconDean]

Before I do you like I did OrthodoxyUSA, I want to say something.

Here are some facts:

While in seminary, I was taught to read and research. When I quoted John Gill, I did so with complete confidence that what he said, was absolutely correct.

I have been through this very same thing with another member who accused me of not reading what was taught.

While studying Systematic Theology, I was exposed to Mr. Gill, and began to read. And of course I checked his references.

Do you understand what I am saying?

I checked his references.

Unlike some, I do my homework.

I have read theology by those with whom I adamtely disagree with. (Arminus, Aquintas, Neibuhr, Wesley, etc.)

I have read theology just to see if there in spite of it all, was buried somewhere a bit of a gold nugget I could take away from it.

The very dictates of my demoniational convictions tell me I was chosen before the foundation of the world for no reason other than He chose to, makes me "elect". Not only among the elect, but "elect".

I see nothing but hatred of Protestant views.

I see nothing but hatred of Protestantism.

I see hatred of all Protestantism teaches.

I see nothing but hatred in your posts of Calvinism, and Reformed theology.

I see hatred in your posts because the whole world is not Eastern Orthodox.

I see nothing but hatred.

But that is alright, I forgive you.

Since this is going nowhere, and to avoid further conflicts, I am placing you on my ignore list.

May God Bless you.

Till all are one.

 

[sculleywr]

Will reply when at a computer. Right now I'm on my phone.

 

[Ignatius21]

Hi Ignatius21

Regarding predestination the sticking point for me ( and many others ) is did God predestined the reprobate. That cause all sorts of problems. Did God then charge and condemn the reprobate for not repenting even though God himself made that impossible.

I believe the key, subtle distinction here, is that the Calvinist will deny that "God himself made that impossible." Man himself made it impossible through his sin (Adam's), and brought upon himself the consequences of total depravity, and now is one big lump of sinful flesh that hates God and does not want to be saved by him. Their confessions are pretty clear that God is not the author of sin, although they simply state it. Whether or not their theology holds up at that point (i.e. whether they are just playing the mystery card there to get out of a tight spot) is debatable, but systematically they do not teach that God is the one who keeps people from repenting.

Those who say "God passed over them" ( single predestination )does not help. It infers we all pre existed for one. Sinned - ok - but God sealed the fate by ensuring they had no way of repenting. So a new born baby leaving the womb is "obnoxious and odious in the sight of God" as John Calvin wrote.

I agree. Single predestination seems, to me, kind of like a "weasel clause" that allows them to say that God gets the glory for saving the elect, but the reprobate themselves are responsible for their own condemnation. I'm almost certain that Calvin himself taught double predestination. We can certainly argue whether one is any less liable for a result by failing to act, than by actually causing the result...that is, is one guilty for not stopping someone from running off a cliff, in the same way that he would be for pushing him over the cliff? But on the other hand, we all have to wrestle with explaining how certain things (like the annihilation of human life from Canaanite cities) can be the commands of God, yet not make him somehow liable for evil.

But I would agree with you that outside the realm of hair-splitting distinctions, single and double predestination lead to the same result.

Those who hold double predestination does not help. It is saying God created many for hell, makes God the author of sin, denies man's responsibility and so on.

Philosophically I can't disagree with this. But on the other hand, they will say that Scripture clearly states both predestination, and that God is not the author of evil, so we should leave it at that. That sort of "mystery" or paradox works only from within their own system. I will grant them that they can play the mystery card there because it is consistent within their own system. I however do not accept the system nor its premises, therefore I have no need to grant that their way of working out the details is valid. Actually I have no need to concern myself with the details really, at all

There are many scriptures that do not support either view without some interpretation.

Amen to that.

Any one who reads will find that this issue was fueled by Agustine. He died without resolving it with his own supporters, not just with Pelagious. 4 point Calvinist drstevj only this evening pointed me to an article on Dort which demonstrates the lack of resolution even with the Synod of Dort.

I've run across 4-pt Calvinism before. Actually I think it makes a bit of sense...perhaps moreso than 5-pt However the end results still work out the same. I have read very little of Augustine on the matter. Of course his writings could fill a charter bus. I have been told by a professor of early Church history, whose dissertation was on contrasting St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom, that while Augustine's views on free will and predestination were rather similar to Calvinists', the rest of his views were pretty solidly rooted in the sacramental, incarnational theology of the early Church. His understanding of the nature of salvation, justification, sacramental grace, etc. are not what one could call Protestant. Of course I once read that some famous Calvinist...Hodge? Warfield?...said that the Reformation was the "victory of Augustine's doctrine of predestination over Augustine's doctrine of the church."

Is there a solution ? For me any proposals that suggest man is not responsible are inaccurate. Many texts say man is responsible.
Is receiving a free gift a work ? IMO no, how about you.

No. Receiving a gift is not a "work" in any sense equivalent to an action that deserves a wage or reward. Much is made about "If man has to accept the gift, then he will boast in that 0.00000000000001% he contributed to his own salvation." I would say that makes that man an idiot. If a drowning man ran around boasting because the Coast Guard sent a helicopter out into the storm and threw a ladder down to him, and then a diver jumped into the waves to pull him to the ladder, but he used his own hand to grab hold of the rope....well, nobody would actually think that man in any way contributed to his own rescue. The man needn't be already dead, then be resuscitated, then have his hands placed on the rope for him, in order for us to say that the Coast Guard rescued him.

Lame analogy, but it's all I can think of.

And besides, all works done in faith...including the act of believing...are not works done apart from Christ, but works done IN CHRIST. We believe not just with faith in Christ, but with the faith of Christ. Synergy, at least in an Orthodox context, is not about God doing 99% and man doing 1%. It's about God doing 100% and man doing 100%, and it still adds up to 100%, because all of man's works are done in Christ, so that it is Christ working in and through that man to bring him fully to salvation. Yet the man's will is fully engaged, and the works really are also his own.

I can't explain that on graph paper. Nor can I explain how Christ's human will was 100% fully active in cooperating with Christ's divine will, such that the two still made up only 100% of one person, and were truly free in respect to each other, and yet worked in total and perfect harmony. Such is the mystery of the Incarnation. And it is the same mystery that is at work in our salvation.

As the thread evolves the subject gets morphed and gets lost. As you can see there ary many threads that boil down to this issue.

Boy, does it ever. Last I looked, it had turned into a quote war of Justin Martyr vs. John Gill. Somebody grab the steel chair!

If the Calvinist are correct why has the majority of man refuted it ? Did God predestine that ?

What do you say ?

Your guess is as good as mine. Time was, Athanasius stood "against the world" exiled for his Orthodox belief in Christ's full divinity. The whole world seemed on a course for Arianism. But the truth prevailed (so we believe and confess, anyway). Time was, perhaps the only faithful man in Israel was hiding in a desert being fed by ravens. Clearly numbers don't equate to truth, and I'm sure you don't think that they do. Calvinists will actually cite your statement above as evidence in their column...of course the majority of man has refuted it, they're totally depraved and hate being told that they're sinful and dead in their hatred of God.

I can only say why I refute it.

 

[Ignatius21]

A troll is a person who tells someone to do something that they cannot do on the internet, or accuses them of being something they are not.

By calvinistic theology, God tells the world to choose, when there are those of the world unable to do so because of God making them that way.

By Biblical and Apostolic Theology, God tells all of mankind to do something which He knows that they can do: confess, repent, and believe in Him. A man who does not do so is fully responsible because it was his CHOICE not to do so. His response was no.

You missed my point. I wasn't asking you to elaborate and defend your view. I was pointing out that you are misrepresenting their view. They do not state that God makes people unable to choose him. They state in their confessions that God is not the author of sin, and he does not force anyone to love him, and does not shut the door to anyone who wants to get in. Whether their confessions hold up to scrutiny is a different matter.

But they do not teach that God makes people into sinners. That was my point. Arguing as though they do only disproves a phantom of their actual claims. And nobody is served by that.

 

[Ignatius21]

12 out of 12 Apostles said man is responsible for rejecting God. You can't be RESPONSible if you can't give a RESPONSE, therefore, there is choice.

Uhhhh, this is a tough one to claim. I get your gist, but obviously we don't have written statements by all 12 apostles clearly stating their view on the relationship between God's call and man's ability. We can argue that the whole of the NT says man is able to respond to God's command (I believe that, though it also says that it is not without grace). We can demonstrate that the earliest church Fathers presuppose an ability of man to obey God's commands to repent. But saying the latter, and offering it as proof that 12 of 12 apostles explicitly taught that, is begging the question and assuming that the views of the earliest Fathers are necessarily equivalent to the views of the 12 apostles.

I believe that assumption is reasonable.
I believe that assumption is consistent with the Church's own historical self-understanding throughout history.

But offering that reasoning to people who do not share the same assumption kinda gets us nowhere. Such a claim is too easy to pounce on.

 

[sculleywr]

You missed my point. I wasn't asking you to elaborate and defend your view. I was pointing out that you are misrepresenting their view. They do not state that God makes people unable to choose him. They state in their confessions that God is not the author of sin, and he does not force anyone to love him, and does not shut the door to anyone who wants to get in. Whether their confessions hold up to scrutiny is a different matter.

But they do not teach that God makes people into sinners. That was my point. Arguing as though they do only disproves a phantom of their actual claims. And nobody is served by that.

No, they don't. But in effect, the doctrine that a man cannot return to God without God's regeneration results in God choosing not to provide a way to salvation for all mankind. He damns them by not regenerating them.

 

[sculleywr]

Before I do you like I did OrthodoxyUSA, I want to say something.

Here are some facts:

While in seminary, I was taught to read and research. When I quoted John Gill, I did so with complete confidence that what he said, was absolutely correct.

I have been through this very same thing with another member who accused me of not reading what was taught.

While studying Systematic Theology, I was exposed to Mr. Gill, and began to read. And of course I checked his references.

Do you understand what I am saying?

I checked his references.

Unlike some, I do my homework.

I have read theology by those with whom I adamtely disagree with. (Arminus, Aquintas, Neibuhr, Wesley, etc.)

I have read theology just to see if there in spite of it all, was buried somewhere a bit of a gold nugget I could take away from it.

The very dictates of my demoniational convictions tell me I was chosen before the foundation of the world for no reason other than He chose to, makes me "elect". Not only among the elect, but "elect".

I see nothing but hatred of Protestant views.

I see nothing but hatred of Protestantism.

I see hatred of all Protestantism teaches.

I see nothing but hatred in your posts of Calvinism, and Reformed theology.

I see hatred in your posts because the whole world is not Eastern Orthodox.

I see nothing but hatred.

But that is alright, I forgive you.

Since this is going nowhere, and to avoid further conflicts, I am placing you on my ignore list.

May God Bless you.

Till all are one.

Honestly, your confidence in Calvinism does not make it true. Your homework does not make it true.

Homework and confidence, and even sincerity? All of these have also the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Arians, the Nestorians, the Monophysites, the Monophylites, and Gnostics, the Nicolatians, and the Muslims.

What separates the truth is "Was this what they meant and is that evident in what their disciples understood?" Given that in the order of all things, and that soteriology was not the focus of Clement, he is not exactly a good source. And taking Tertullian out of context to make him support predestination is a huge failure to give true justice to the writings thereof. Taking a descriptive writing and making it prescriptive is a failure of academic methods. Every time he mentions the doctrines of predestination, he prefaces them with "They say" and "they believe". Who is the "they"? The followers of Valentinus, against whom Tertullian is writing, along with Irenaeus. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus described what he called "The Tradition, which was given by the Apostles, and was preserved by the succession of the presbyters in the Church" (Book 3, Chapter 2.2). Later, he says:

This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will (toward us) is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves…

If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give counsel to do some things and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free-will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free-will in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God. (Against Heresies XXXVII)


For He who makes the chaff and He who makes the wheat are not different persons, but one and the same, who judges them, that is, separates them. But the wheat and the chaff, being inanimate and irrational, have been made such by nature. But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect like to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself the cause to himself, that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff. Wherefore also he shall be justly condemned because, having been created a rational being, he lost the true rationality, and living irrationally, opposed the righteousness of God, serving all lusts; as says the prophet, "Man, being in honor, did not understand: he was assimilated to senseless beasts, and made like to them."(Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 4, paragraph 3)​

Free will is juxtaposed completely to predestination as the Calvinistic theology teaches it. Free will is that which is the Tradition of the Apostles, and it is that theology for which men became martyrs to the heresies of Valentinus, Nicholas (who was ordained a Deacon in Acts), and of the other heretics.


Finally, if it appear that I am hateful, it is not that I hate the people, but rather the mindset of the whole theology. I hate anything which purports itself to be the original faith when it runs contrary to the combined whole of the Tradition (both Scripture AND the Fathers) of the first Church.

If it is to be believed that the teachings of the Apostles were true, and that they were available to all the saints in all generations, then it is necessary to show the connection to the Apostles through more than just Scripture. Scripture simply sets forth the requirement of continuity. It is history which proves continuity.

 

[drstevej]

He damns them by not regenerating them.

Nope, they were already damned by sin. More Kelvinistic misrepresentation on your part.

 

[drstevej]

What separates the truth is "Was this what they meant and is that evident in what their disciples understood?"

Jesus' disciples ALWAYS understood what Jesus meant?

Nope.

Try again.

 

[Ignatius21]

Jesus' disciples ALWAYS understood what Jesus meant?

Nope.

Try again.

I don't think Sculley was trying to be this simplistic about it. I grant that in his posts thus far, he's kind of taken the discussion in a new direction by pulling in the Church Fathers, but he isn't saying (unless he wants to correct me, but I don't think he will) that those who followed the Apostles (i.e. the Church Fathers) never misunderstood anything, or preserved a verbatim copy of everything that was taught. Nobody thinks that the Fathers agreed among themselves about everything, all the time. Clearly not. Some of them went off into areas of pretty wild speculation. But on core teachings (of which, free will and the ability of man to respond, and his own responsibility for not responding) they were remarkably close. And it can be generally acknowledged that Augustine's understandings of predestination, inability to believe, and the like (as well as his ideas about original sin) were a development in thinking, they were not immediately accepted, certainly not accepted everywhere (even in the west his ideas were opposed by St. Vincent of Lerins, and I'm pretty sure his famous "believed everywhere and by all" canon was directed toward Augustine's teachings on predestination). They were never accepted in Eastern Christianity to this day.

Anyway, the overwhelming tide of thought regarding man's ability to accept the Gospel, was not Augustinian. One needn't show that every disciple of the apostles understood every point of doctrine every time. But if history is to have any voice at all, the voice of the early Church makes it difficult to argue that the earliest Christians understood the apostle's teachings in the way that Calvinists do.

I'm guessing that's at least part of Sculley's point, and it's not one that's easily dismissed.

 

[drstevej]

I am saying that the way you judge whether the EFC were on target or off is by comparing with Scripture. The same is true of Calvin or Arminius.

As I have studied the panorama of Church History it seems like each issue wrestles with the understanding of a different area of biblical truth.

 

[Ignatius21]

I am saying that the way you judge whether the EFC were on target or off is by comparing with Scripture. The same is true of Calvin or Arminius.

As I have studied the panorama of Church History it seems like each issue wrestles with the understanding of a different area of biblical truth.

Every statement we make is laden with assumptions and presuppositions. Fundamentally I would agree with your statement above. But our presuppositions are very different.

the way you judge

The way who judges? Each person for himself? The church as a whole? The church defined how, and by whom?

is by comparing with Scripture

To me, comparing with Scripture includes comparing my understanding of things to that of the very ECF's you're saying must be on or off target. On what basis can I assume that my own method of interpretation (or that of John Calvin, or Luther, or Arminius, or the Westminster Assembly, or the Southern Baptist Convention) is better or more correct than that of Irenaeus, Athanasius, the Cappadocians? The ECF's themselves pointed to the Scriptures as the norm against which doctrines must be tested, but that interpretation was to be carried out (including all the fights, arguments, councils, etc.) within the Church, and they shared an understanding that there was ONE church in succession from and continuity with the apostles, united in common worship and faith life.

This is not the place for such a discussion since it's far afield of the thread's intent, but I'm just pointing out that in making a blanket, unqualified statement like "they way you determine if the ECF's were on target is by comparing them with Scripture" you open up the discussion in a whole new direction because that statement is undergirded by your own presuppositions about how Scripture is to be interpreted, and by whom, in which framework, etc.

The matter is far from being that simple.

 

[sculleywr]

Jesus' disciples ALWAYS understood what Jesus meant?

Nope.

Try again.

Did the Church fail, then? Because apparently it took only two generations (Christ being the perfect generation, and the Apostles the imperfect) for the "truth" of predestinationism to be wiped out of the Church as a whole. And don't even try to "Trail of Blood" your way out of it.

Christ sent the Spirit, Who gave them all understanding.

 

[sculleywr]

I don't think Sculley was trying to be this simplistic about it. I grant that in his posts thus far, he's kind of taken the discussion in a new direction by pulling in the Church Fathers, but he isn't saying (unless he wants to correct me, but I don't think he will) that those who followed the Apostles (i.e. the Church Fathers) never misunderstood anything, or preserved a verbatim copy of everything that was taught. Nobody thinks that the Fathers agreed among themselves about everything, all the time. Clearly not. Some of them went off into areas of pretty wild speculation. But on core teachings (of which, free will and the ability of man to respond, and his own responsibility for not responding) they were remarkably close. And it can be generally acknowledged that Augustine's understandings of predestination, inability to believe, and the like (as well as his ideas about original sin) were a development in thinking, they were not immediately accepted, certainly not accepted everywhere (even in the west his ideas were opposed by St. Vincent of Lerins, and I'm pretty sure his famous "believed everywhere and by all" canon was directed toward Augustine's teachings on predestination). They were never accepted in Eastern Christianity to this day.

Anyway, the overwhelming tide of thought regarding man's ability to accept the Gospel, was not Augustinian. One needn't show that every disciple of the apostles understood every point of doctrine every time. But if history is to have any voice at all, the voice of the early Church makes it difficult to argue that the earliest Christians understood the apostle's teachings in the way that Calvinists do.

I'm guessing that's at least part of Sculley's point, and it's not one that's easily dismissed.

Finally, someone who found the target board.

My point is only that if Predestination according to Calvinism were true, then the Apostles are among the worst teachers ever, because it seems to have disappeared.

The logical extension is that if the Apostles failed to communicate the whole true interpretation, how can we then trust that Calvin rediscovered that whole true interpretation?