Featured Can we conclude that Calvinism is a relatively NEW doctrine?

Icon,

Was Reform scholar and historian, Loraine Boettner, looking at history with an agenda and despitely attempting to rewrite history when he wrote:

Calvinism in History: Before the Reformation by Loraine Boettner

Loraine Boettner
It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc., as the basis of salvation. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination and perhaps also that of God’s absolute Foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will. It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out his own salvation. But at last, as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the great truth that salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed irrespective of merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the author in all of its stages. This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect.​

 

How about we take one quote at a time and watch how the Calvinists here attempt to twist, spin and explain away the clear intent:

IRENAEUS c.130-200
[He was an early Church Father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a hearer of Polycarp,[1] who in turn was a disciple of John the Evangelist.]

Against Heresies XXXVII

"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."​

This man is one disciple removed from the apostle John and this is one of the strongest defenses of libertarian Free-will I've ever seen.

 

"To save the unwilling is the act of one using compulsion; but to save the willing, that of one showing grace." (Clement of Alexandria, 190 AD )

 

Unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not responsible for their actions.
(Justin Martyr, 160 AD, 1.177)

 

ORIGEN c.185-254


De Principiis Preface

"Now it ought to be known that the holy apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed to be necessary to everyone . . . This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the church that every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition."

De principiis Bk 3 ch. 1

"There are, indeed, innumerable passages in the Scriptures which establish with exceeding clearness the existence of freedom of will."

 

If you'd like to once again hash out the age old debate over the interpretation of this passage in John, fine by me, but start a new thread.

Plus, you beg the question by presuming that the view of those students and closest to the apostles were 'annulling' rather than affirming the view of scripture, as that is the point up for debate. Let me remind you that question begging is a fallacy and the lowest form of debate as it is circular in nature and accomplishes nothing more than saying, "You're wrong because I'm right." We can do better than that.

 

You can explain that to Clement when we get to heaven, but I doubt he (or even you for that matter) will be concerned with the semantics of Calvinism's ever so nuanced views regarding the "drawing, compelling, irresistible, effectual, sovereign, unchanging, unstoppable, immutable" acts of God in the salvation of people.

 

Justin Martyr:

“For if it is predetermined that this man will be good, and this other man will be evil, neither is the first one meritorious nor the latter man to be blamed…”

 

Clement of Alexandria

“Neither praises nor censures, neither rewards nor punishments, are right IF THE SOUL DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OF INCLINATION AND DISINCLINATION AND IF EVIL IS INVOLUNTARY…IN NO RESPECT IS GOD THE AUTHOR OF EVIL. But since FREE CHOICE AND INCLINATION ORIGINATE SINS…punishments are justly inflicted”

 

Tertullian

“I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. HE WAS MASTER OF HIS OWN WILL AND POWER…for a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance”

 

EWF, thank you for a text book example of the fallacy referred to as a 'red herring.' Tertullians, as well as the other ECF's, speculations as to the inherited nature of man as passed from parent to child has nothing to do with whether or not these early disciples believed the Reformed interpretation of predestination/election and free will.

But shall we look at some of the errant views of Augustine and Calvin so as to question their creditability as it relates to the support for your soteriological views, because that red herring will fly too?