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

You were wrong in your assertions about the Gospel of John in the previous thread and will be wrong on a new thread!

The Gospel of John clearly teaches the Doctrines of Grace. Anyone teaching anything other than that were certainly not affirming Scripture. Therefore, you are wrong to say I am assuming the truth of that statement.

You may be able to do better but you don't. You freewill folks excel at begging the question, circular reasoning, or chasing your tail.

 

I am never concerned about the truth of Scripture!

 

Icon,

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


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.


To try and use a quote this way is not helping your case.There is and has always been those who believe a wide spectrum of false ideas as LB points out in this portion!That same error was held by those who walked away from jesus in jn6:63-67.

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.

When 12 strings posted a list of the ecf that did not agree with you, you answered in post7 that perhaps an examination of the context would be helpful to him...lol....and now you proceed to list one liners trying to make your case, devoid of context.
This is why OLD REGULAR says you are chasing your tail. having failed everytime from trying to make a scriptural case....you go now to ....ECF quotes...hoping to speculate as to what they might have meant.....lol...

 

Keep an eye out Willis...we will post several more ecf heresies that you can enjoy.

 

One of the many great things about people who believe in the Doctrines of Grace is that we also hold to the doctrine of the Bible alone being the inspired Word of God, unlike the Roman Catholics who would rather quote the ECF and other extra biblical sources because they are unable to deal with the clarity of what scripture teaches.

 

HeirofSalvation

Hello Hos....grace and peace to you:wavey:

Agreed...exactly...DHK knows this is a can of worms and he was only posting enough to indicate that....

If the intent was to lets take a look at the ramblings and musings of the "ecf"...that would be one thing....but we know Skan is on 24/7 anti cal jihad.

.

and when 12 strings began to respond in kind, he was quickly dismissed by saying he needed to explore the context more in post 7.

He cherry picked what he wanted to...

As others have already posted...you can use these men for or against anything......

here is a heretic, who opposes grace and likes the fathers and says they helped him understand universalism......so{he is no friend of the calvinist, }and yet he finds heresies all over the place, some of which he embraces
http://www.thebeautifulheresy.com/2005/08/early-church.html

.

Of course it is.What I was saying was for example ...i can be very critical of the believing anabaptists what they wrote or taught. But I was not in their shoes.....I cannot fully grasp how little they had to work with, so I might be critical of much of their un-developed ,theology...and yet own them as brothers because of the blood shed for them.

It taints everything very heavily don't you think....
If i started every thread with.....
.Why are Arminians similar in their thinking to a horses behind?
Do you think whatever i posted after would be objective at all? or..Satans words and the teaching of arminian free will....one and the same?
or how about....lets take a poll...
Demoniacs in the gospels, by asking to not be tormented before their time,where they open theist in theology???

If I posted without scripture ,you should ignore my posts....if that is all I did.

27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

I believe this. We all should.Each poster should be free to post what they understand is truth. We do.
Some of us are wrong,almost all the time....Arminians:laugh:
All of us are wrong some of the time.....
Some are teachable...so we interact
All should be teachable, but are not.

Agreed...that is why I do not ignore many posters who should be ignored..ie, [my fan club]....Even a broken clock is right twice a day,so i count on the loyal opposition......you, skan, webdog, allan, and others do fire back and question as best you can.....and if anything I will try and chide your like minded homies to bring forth their strongest objections as I believe the truth of what we know as calvinism will come through as there is not one arminian text in the whole bible...

frankly...that is why I am disappointed sometimes that some of the objectors are ill informed.....it is like when you witness to a RC...you have to teach them what they are supposed to believe ,then correct it scripturally:laugh:
"Proving" isn't, strictyly speaking, what he is trying to do....but nonetheless, you are acting as though he is trying to "dis-prove" Calvinism or something else......He is only debating what were, in fact, the positions held by the earliest of the ancients......and he used the primary sources to do so. That is valid.

it would be if he did not taint it as he does...but Aaron calls him on it so I defer to aaron:laugh:

 

part two;

This was a problem along with not having scriptures in their own language, that is why God in providence did a great work with the reformers.

I do not engage in this speculation...suffice it to say....it was an issue.



,

...

I am not comfortable with any of these men, frankly, I believe many of them were unsaved.

No..it is not my thing...I like to study and discuss Jesus person and work, and scripture.


.

This is useless to me.

This argument makes no sense........ to begin with:

I am glad some give themselves to this ....I find it not as fruitful and way to subjective depending on whose history book you want to read..
Many errors were being dealt with.....but which particular "error" do you speak of??????/ Are we "question-begging" again?

you have to some extent...


this is what you have already done:
1.) Suggest that Skan was "re-writing" history, which implies that the earliest Church Fathers WEREN'T committed to a synergistic view of Salvation.....
2.) Suggest that Skan's quoted Church Fathers (who were synergistic) WERE then committed to it, and you are implying that they were thus merely posing one of several innummerable errors.......

These quotes are useless in determining truth, in the same way the NPP people seek out quotes of unsaved Jews about second temple judaism as if they have discovered some secret insights that help us determine what the apostles meant by reading these unsaved men.

.

He is quoting...cherry picking what he wants to. This does not prove anything.i can list hundreds of heresies they believed....all to no purpose...

.
I do not need to.I will stick with the truthas it is in Jesus.

THat calvinists and calvinists alone understand the whole context is exactly because they read it as a unit.

I have said many times I type poorly,so sometimes briefly ....if you ask nicely as you have,[ without any relapse into your sometimes rude way of expressing and foaming at the mouth]...I will answer as time permits....

 

Here is the blogger brian who I linked earlier...no friend of calvinists,and yet he speaks of ECF teaching of universalism...I post this to show this can go anywhere you want it to.

 

During the First Century the primitive Christians did not dwell on matters of eschatology, but devoted their attention to apologetics; they were chiefly anxious to establish the fact of Christ's advent, and of its blessings to the world. Possibly the question of destiny was an open one, till Paganism and Judaism introduced erroneous ideas, when the New Testament doctrine of the apokatastasis was asserted, and universal restoration became an accepted belief, as stated later by Clement and Origen, A.D. 180-230.
The Catacombs give us the views of the unlearned, as Clement and Origen state the doctrine of scholars and teachers. Not a syllable is found hinting at the horrors of Augustinianism, but the inscription on every monument harmonizes with the Universalism of the early fathers.
Clement declares that all punishment, however severe, is purificatory; that even the "torments of the damned" are curative. Origen explains even Gehenna as signifying limited and curative punishment, and both, as all the other ancient Universalists, declare that "everlasting" (aionion) punishment, is consonant with universal salvation. So that it is no proof that other primitive Christians who are less explicit as to the final result, taught endless punishment when they employ the same terms.
Like our Lord and his Apostles, the primitive Christians avoided the words with which the Pagans and Jews defined endless punishment aidios or adialeipton timoria (endless torment), a doctrine the latter believed, and knew how to describe; but they, the early Christians, called punishment, as did our Lord, kolasis aionios, discipline, chastisement, of indefinite, limited duration.
The early Christians taught that Christ preached the Gospel to the dead, and for that purpose descended into Hades. Many held that he released all who were in ward. This shows that repentance beyond the grave, perpetual probation, was then accepted, which precludes the modern error that the soul's destiny is decided at death.
Prayers for the dead were universal in the early church, which would be absurd, if their condition is unalterably fixed at the grave.
The idea that false threats were necessary to keep the common people in check, and that the truth might be held esoterically, prevailed among the earlier Christians, so that there can be no doubt that many who seem to teach endless punishment, really held the broader views, as we know the most did, and preached terrors pedagogically.
The first comparatively complete systematic statement of Christian doctrine ever given to the world was by Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 180, and universal salvation was one of the tenets.
The first complete presentation of Christianity as a system was by Origen (A.D. 220) and universal salvation was explicitly contained in it.
Universal salvation was the prevailing doctrine in Christendom as long as Greek, the language of the New Testament, was the language of Christendom.
Universalism was generally believed in the best centuries, the first three, when Christians were most remarkable for simplicity, goodness and missionary zeal.
Universalism was least known when Greek, the language of the New Testament was least known, and when Latin was the language of the Church in its darkest, most ignorant, and corrupt ages.
Not a writer among those who describe the heresies of the first three hundred years intimates that Universalism was then a heresy, though it was believed by many, if not by a majority, and certainly by the greatest of the fathers.
Not a single creed for five hundred years expresses any idea contrary to universal restoration, or in favor of endless punishment.
With the exception of the arguments of Augustine (A.D. 420), there is not an argument known to have been framed against Universalism for at least four hundred years after Christ, by any of the ancient fathers.
While the councils that assembled in various parts of Christendom, anathematized every kind of doctrine supposed to be heretical, no oecumenical council, for more than five hundred years, condemned Universalism, though it had been advocated in every century by the principal scholars and most revered saints.
As late as A.D. 400, Jerome says "most people" (plerique). and Augustine "very many" (quam plurimi), believed in Universalism, notwithstanding that the tremendous influence of Augustine, and the mighty power of the semi-pagan secular arm were arrayed against it.
The principal ancient Universalists were Christian born and reared, and were among the most scholarly and saintly of all the ancient saints.
The most celebrated of the earlier advocates of endless punishment were heathen born, and led corrupt lives in their youth. Tertullian one of the first, and Augustine, the greatest of them, confess to having been among the vilest.
The first advocates of endless punishment, Minucius Felix, Tertullian and Augustine, were Latins, ignorant of Greek, and less competent to interpret the meaning of Greek Scriptures than were the Greek scholars.
The first advocates of Universalism, after the Apostles, were Greeks, in whose mother-tongue the New Testament was written. They found their Universalism in the Greek Bible. Who should be correct, they or the Latins?
The Greek Fathers announced the great truth of universal restoration in an age of darkness, sin and corruption. There was nothing to suggest it to them in the world's literature or religion. It was wholly contrary to everything around them. Where else could they have found it, but where they say they did, in the Gospel?
All ecclesiastical historians and the best Biblical critics and scholars agree to the prevalence of Universalism in the earlier centuries.
From the days of Clement of Alexandria to those of Gregory of Nyssa and Theodore of Mopsuestia (A.D. 180-428), the great theologians and teachers, almost without exception, were Universalists. No equal number in the same centuries were comparable to them for learning and goodness.
The first theological school in Christendom, that in Alexandria, taught Universalism for more than two hundred years.
In all Christendom, from A.D. 170 to 430, there were six Christian schools. Of these four, the only strictly theological schools, taught Universalism, and but one endless punishment.
The three earliest Gnostic sects, the Basilidians, the Carpocratians and the Valentinians (A.D. 117-132) are condemned by Christian writers, and their heresies pointed out, but though they taught Universalism, that doctrine is never condemned by those who oppose them. Irenaeus condemned the errors of the Carpocratians, but does not reprehend their Universalism, though he ascribes the doctrine to them.
The first defense of Christianity against Infidelity (Origen against Celsus) puts the defense on Universalistic grounds. Celsus charged the Christians' God with cruelty, because he punished with fire. Origen replied that God's fire is curative; that he is a "Consuming Fire," because he consumes sin and not the sinner.
Origen, the chief representative of Universalism in the ancient centuries, was bitterly opposed and condemned for various heresies by ignorant and cruel fanatics. He was accused of opposing Episcopacy, believing in pre-existence, etc., but never was condemned for his Universalism. The very council that anathematized "Origenism" eulogized Gregory of Nyssa, who was explicitly a Universalist as was Origen. Lists of his errors are given by Methodius, Pamphilus and Eusebius, Marcellus, Eustathius and Jerome, but Universalism is not named by one of his opponents. Fancy a list of Ballou's errors and his Universalism omitted; Hippolytus (A.D. 320) names thirty-two known heresies, but Universalism is not mentioned as among them. Epiphanius, "the hammer of heretics," describes eighty heresies, but he does not mention universal salvation, though Gregory of Nyssa, an outspoken Universalist, was, at the time he wrote, the most conspicuous figure in Christendom.
Justinian, a half-pagan emperor, who attempted to have Universalism officially condemned, lived in the most corrupt epoch of the Christian centuries. He closed the theological schools, and demanded the condemnation of Universalism by law; but the doctrine was so prevalent in the church that the council refused to obey his edict to suppress it. Lecky says the age of Justinian was "the worst form civilization has assumed."
The first clear and definite statement of human destiny by any Christian writer after the days of the Apostles, includes universal restoration, and that doctrine was advocated by most of the greatest and best of the Christian Fathers for the first five hundred years of the Christian Era.

A careful study of the early history of the Christian religion, will show that the doctrine of universal restoration was least prevalent in the darkest, and prevailed most in the most enlightened, of the earliest centuries--that it was the prevailing doctrine in the Primitive Christian Church.

 

http://againstallheresies.blogspot.com/2006/08/early-church-fathers-on-no-salvation.html

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

 

And all this time I thought you were a free will Baptist.

 

Yes.... just spoke to my good friend & Pastor in Kentucky. On the beam again! :godisgood:

 

To paraphrase Amy.G I am under the radar. My Moniker is really not OldRegular but OldFreewill!:laugh:

 

But of course!

 

In all honesty Skandelon you have presented the essence of your discussion and the discussion of most "freewill" folks on this Forum: Freewill good, Sovereignty of God bad!