The problem stated
Dear Determinist/Calvinists,
Augustine wrote out his doctrines of predestination before ecumenical councils were made dealing with Christology.
So let's consider Christology in light of the doctrine of determinism.
So let's consider Christology in light of the doctrine of determinism.
Christ was predestined to die on the cross.
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: "
Obviously scripture agrees that the cross was God's plan.
However, in his prayer in the garden of Gethsemane Christ prays a response.
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: "
Obviously scripture agrees that the cross was God's plan.
However, in his prayer in the garden of Gethsemane Christ prays a response.
Jesus said Matt 26: 39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."
From this verse, if the logos{Word of God John. 1:1) had the will of God then the logos was opposed to the will of Jesus, thus the logos and Jesus are two persons. (aka Nestorianism)
If the logos and Jesus are one person, then the Father is at odds with the will of the logos and there is a division in the Godhead and God damns himself on the cross.
Matthew 27: 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Matthew 27: 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
How do you keep proper Christology (doctrine of Christ) in this scenario?
Now most of the time, I may hear "the hypostatic union" announcing 2 wills of Christ. Which means that Jesus's divine nature wills differently from his human nature, after all the divine mind is not equivalent to a human mind.
However, Christ must be one person and the 2 wills can not be in conflict, because if that were the case he is either insane or 2 persons.
However, Christ must be one person and the 2 wills can not be in conflict, because if that were the case he is either insane or 2 persons.
If we have libertarian free will[ability to choose either opposite options], then Jesus is simply not feeling like going through the cross and then overcoming his fears. Of course, if the man Jesus has free will, then human nature must be free as a result.
James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:"
Jesus did not have iniquity in his flesh because God was the Father of Jesus and not Adam.
Luke 1: 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God"
Luke 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?"
But even without iniquity, the question is of Jesus' human creaturely status. Do humans have a free range of choices, or are all there choices determined by the Will of the Father?
This is not to say that Jesus does not obey the will of the Father, he does.
John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."
However, is Christ's obedience the product of a predetermined mechanism or a merited righteousness?
Determinism is a philosophy that God has decreed all things that happened from molecules even to thoughts. Calvinists are the most famous group that holds this belief. Later there were those who argue that God's predestination is true and yet it is, however, compatible with free-will.
Many Calvinist and non-Calvinist get confused by this principle as they assume that the belief of Compatibilism modifies determinism to allow free will.
God predestines the elect and passes over those who are reprobates(unbelievers). Man is free, only he has a corrupt nature. However, God has predestined man's nature! So it is still determinist.
So the only real alternative is libertarian freedom, because either man's will is free or it is not.
Biblical prologue for a New Testament Church
The Lord Jesus was different from the local rabbis. He spoke on his own authority.
Matthew 7:29
He demanded that His followers not be ashamed of his words or he would be ashamed of them.
Mark 8:38
He warned people not to take up the doctrines of the Pharisees. They should not take another than God as their father, and have a teacher separate from Jesus. Because the Pharisees took advantage of people, by enslaving them and compromising the faith. Their ancestors killed the prophets
Matthew 23:4-39
Jesus also gave authority to His apostles
John 16:13, Mark 16:17-18, Hebrews 2:4
The last of the apostles was Paul because he was the last to see Jesus.
Acts 1:20-22, 1 Corinthians 15:8, Acts 18:9-10, 2 Peter 3:15-16
The Apostle Paul warned that there would be coming false apostles of great worldly stature
2 Corinthians 11:13 (read full chapter)
He warned of false teachers, so did John, Peter and Jude.
1 Tim 4:1-3, 2 Timothy 4:1-4, 1 john 2:15-29, 2 Peter 2:1-9, Jude 4
The answer to preserve orthodoxy was teaching of the Old and New Testament aka the bible.
1 Peter 1:23-25, 2 Peter 1:15-21, 3:1-7, 1 timothy 4:6, 2 timothy 3:14-4:5 Hebrews 4:12, Rev. 1:3,22:18-19
In terms of man's authority the Holy Spirit anoints the congregation and not just the clergy.
Matthew 18:17-20, Acts 2:2-18, 1 john 2:27-28, 1 timothy 3:15-16, 1 peter 2:9-10
The congregation must be based on being born again to obtain membership
John 15:1-10, Acts 2:38-41, 8:36-38, 10:43-48, 16:30-34, 19:1-6, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
Paul warns that the spirit of antichrist is a present reality, John hints that it is Babylonian and Roman.
2 Thessalonians 2:7, Revelation 2:13, 24, 17:1-6,9 (cf. 1Peter 5:13)
Sadly in Christian history believers too often ignored the biblical mandate and manmade religion slowly replace the New Testament religion
How this problem developed in Catholic History
1. Alexandria had Jews and Christians who would confuse the faith with pagan philosophy2. One of which was Origen who taught that Jesus' divine nature was birthed by the Father in eternity past (subordination, eternal generation), he also altered bibles and influenced other Christians to do likewise.
3. When Constantine took over the Roman Empire, he stopped persecuting Christians But spoiled and pampered the bishops. Then he organized a church Council (Nicaea) to make a new law of the land concerning God.
4. Eusebius was a follower of Origen: He studied under the curator of his library. Origen was Ordained in the city of Caesarea. Eusebius convinced Constantine and the bishops to use his church's confession. He tried to get them to downplay the deity of Christ, but they rejected it.
5. Included was this doctrine of eternal generation
"begotten of the Father Light of Light, very God of very God",
later they changed it to
"the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages."
How can God come from God? This is because they were confused about Jesus being the only begotten Son. Was the Son His eternal nature or his human nature?
6. The bible teaches that the man was the Son and the divine Word/Logos became the Man.
Matthew 27:43, mark 5:7, 15:39, Luke 1:31,34, 22:70, John 1:34-35, 10:36, 20:31
John 1:1, 1 John 5:7, john 1:14 1 Timothy 3:16
7.The confusion of eternal generation would distort both east and west.
Roman Catholics think that because the logos is the Son that He is not very personal.
The Eastern Orthodox think that because The logos is the Son, that He is less God than the father.
8. The RCC would add a clause (et filioque) to indicate the relationship of the trinity. They assert divine simplicity to say that the 3 persons are the same but that the 2 submit to the Father and the Spirit submits to the Son.
"Who proceeds from the Father and the Son,."
The EOC rejects this and says that both are less powerful than the father.
9. Both East and West Catholics think that since Christ is less persona l(7) So they need to recognize God's mother Mary for his affection.
The EOC can not understand justification because Why would God(father) punish God(son)? So they emphasize sacraments to become godlike.
10. Catholics being defensive of their differences with the EOC would start to exaggerate their teaching about divine simplicity. as a result the persons would fade into the background of the divine godhead. So instead of speaking of the Father or Jesus they simply speak of God.(a)
11. The reformers were catholic priests who were just starting to focus on the scriptures. Luther and Calvin often would differ back to Augustine.
12. The Protestants believed in the Gospel. But they were confused about the church due to their catholic upbringing and indoctrination in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. They are organized as Catholics instead of NT Christians.
13. They think their denominations are the kingdom of God, Their preachers are separate priests, to be teachers, or prophets or apostles.
14. When the reformers give up sacramentalism they replace it with doctrine as a sacrament.
15. The reformers kept the traditions of creedalism even the catholic ones.
16. Over time protestants turned into New Testament Christians through the preaching of scripture. However, in recent years Seminaries have been used, to get Christians more friendly with the Roman Catholic church. Protestants who are more catholic are picked out to the education of pastors to make them think more catholic.
17. The "New Calvinists" are roman friendly and have engaged in many ecumenical meetings. They emphasize catholic friendly New Translations, Lordship salvation, and the hatred of popular evangelistic methods
18. Augustine is well known to have been an ex-platonic and Manichean professional philosopher prior to his conversion. And he was propelled to the bishopric rather early. He repented of his views at first, but then turned back to some of them after his confrontations with Pelagius.
19 Augustine wrote before the majority of the creeds dealing with Christology. Scholars have noticed that his views of salvation work as if Christ's personality was dominated By God to where he was less human. So as Christ was forced to be sinless, salvation would be forced upon the elect. But Jesus is one person! His one person is not just divine but also human.
20. This is the typical personality displayed in Calvinism. Why do the preachers seem to say Christ instead of Jesus? Jesus is his name Christ is only his Title. But reformer after reformer will speak of Christ as if it were his personal name. A culture that wants to emphasize the position and authority; instead of the personality of the Savior.
Notes: ( the reader is encourage to look at other works in church history to confirm other statements)
Main Question notes: John Piper on occasions demonstrates the dilemma in some of his conclusions.
"So what we are considering here is that God rules the world in such a way that all calamities and all sin remain in His ultimate control and therefore within his ultimate design and purpose." Desiring God pg. 338"If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God's Holiness in hatred of sin or in showing any preference, in his providence, of Godliness before it."
Desiring God pg.350 (quoting Jonathon Edwards)Decree) noun 1. An authoritative order having the force of law. 2. law The judgment of a court of equity. admiralty, probate, or divorce. 3. Roman Catholic Church a. A doctrinal or disciplinary act of an ecumenical council. b. An administrators act applying of canon law.
verb. 1. To ordain establish, or decide by decree (from American Heritage Dictionary)
"“I have listened now several times to two messages from the 2008 Resolved Conference by CJ Mahaney and John Piper. The shocking phrase they both chose to use to describe Jesus’ finished work of redemption on the cross for the elect was, The Scream of the Damned. No, they are not referring to unregenerate people in hell, or the weeping and gnashing of teeth from perdition’s flames, but using this to describe the sinless, holy Son of God as our divine Substitute. The Lord Jesus Christ the Righteous now called: The Damned. This is unthinkable. Those words not only stunned me, but it did stir my interest afresh to go back and study again the atoning work of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross with those provocative words in mind.”
I began listening to “God’s Wrath: Vengeance is Mine, I Will Repay” by John Piper tonight after carefully reading through Steve Camp’s post and the comments meta and lo and behold what did I discover but that John Piper has evidently been teaching this doctrine for years!......Now you’ll need to listen to the audio because the statement didn’t make it into the sermon transcript, but beginning at about the 1:18 mark Piper makes the statement; “Jesus Christ perfectly righteous and perfectly damned on the cross in our place”."https://absolutedomini0n.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/jesus-christ-the-damned-2/
"So Christ is a lamb-like Lion and a lion-like lamb. That is his glory-'an admirable conjunction of diverse Excellencies."
Seeing and savoring Christ pg. 31
Thus we see a pivot towards Nestorianism.
1. "Titus Flavius Clemens, also known as Clement of Alexandria (Greek: Κλήμης ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς; c. 150 – c. 215),[4] was a Christian theologian and philosopher who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. A convert to Christianity, he was an educated man who was familiar with classical Greek philosophy and literature. As his three major works demonstrate, Clement was influenced by Hellenistic philosophy to a greater extent than any other Christian thinker of his time, and in particular by Plato and the Stoics.[5] His secret works, which exist only in fragments, suggest that he was also familiar with pre-Christian Jewish esotericism and Gnosticism. In one of his works he argued that Greek philosophy had its origin among non-Greeks, claiming that both Plato and Pythagoras were taught by Egyptian scholars.[6] Among his pupils were Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria
" . nevertheless from the 3rd cent. BC to the 6th cent. AD it was the center of Gravity in the philosophic world. "Plato was numbered among the prophets. Greece here acknowledged the Divine Unity to which the OT was pledged. Here the Jew acknowledged that Athens as truly as Jerusalem had taught a vision of God. This was the first attempt to form a universal religion. The Alex. philosophy was the Elijah to prepare the way for a Savior of the world. The thought of both Sadducee and Pharisee was affected by it and much late Jewish lit. is saturated with it.
".... Neoplatonism was the 'germ out of which Christian theology sprang"'
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia "Alexandria" Camdem Cobern
2."'However, once this has be said. It is also important to note that on many points Origen is more Platonist than Christian. Thus, for instance, Origen rejects the doctrines of Marcion and of the Gnostics, that the world is the creation of an inferior being; but then he comes to the conclusion that the existence of the physical world - as well as of history- is the result of sin.' At this point there is a marked difference with Irenaeus, for whom the existence of history was part of the eternal purpose of God. And when it comes to the preexistence of souls, and to the eternal cycle of fall and restoration. There is no doubt that Origen strays from what Christianity has usually taught. " Justo L. Gonzales The story of Christian theology pg. 81 ''We say that the Savior and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatures without possible comparison, in a wholly transcendent way but that they are exceeded by the Father by as much or even more than they exceed the other beings. " Origen quoted by Henry Crouzcl pg.203
also Roger E. Olson The Story of Christian Theology pg. 110"We therefore, as the more pious and truer course, admit that all things were made
by the Logos and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ." Origen Allen Menzies, Anti-nicene Fathers pg.328(gathered from Final Authority by William P. Grady) Pg.91
4.“In order to analyze these discrepancies, one must first discern something of Eusebius’ national, personal and theological positions. Although we know little of His life, It is fairly certain that Eusebius was born in Caesarea about 263. This was the city which had ordained Origen and which, when he was condemned by synods in Alexandria and-significantly-Rome, sheltered after his excommunication.
“It was in Caesarea that Origen deposited his library, began a school, and continued his scholarship until his death in 254-within a decade of Eusebius’ birth. After Origen’s death, his library came under the curatorship of Pamphilus, who had studied in Alexandria under the Origenist teacher Pierus. In his youth, Eusebius assisted Pamphilus; about the year 308 he coauthored the ‘Apology for Origen’ with Him. Breathing the air of Origen’s Own library, having learned from and assisted Origen’s principle defender, it is self evident that Eusebius was not only an easterner, but also a supporter of Origen.
“It is not surprising to learn that Eusebius should have later been Arian in His theology. Like Origen, Arius also taught subordinationism, and, like Origen, Arius found support in the east, from Eusebius of Nicomedia, and our Eusebius, who by that time was bishop of Caesarea.” Attridge, Harold W. “Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism” Pg. 317-18
5."The council which assembled at Nicaea in May, 325, has always lived in Christian tradition as the most important in the history of the church. To it the bishops were summoned at government expense, accompanied by lower clergy, who did not, however, have votes in it's decisions. The east had the vast preponderance. Of about 300 bishops present, only 6 were from the West. It included 3 parties a small section, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, were thoroughgoing Arians. Another small group were equally strenuous supporters of Alexander. The large majority, of whom the church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea was a leader not deeply versed in the question at issue. Indeed the majority, as a whole, were described by an unsympathetic writer as "simpletons."4 As far as they had any opinion, they stood on the general basis of the teachings of Origin. Conspicuous in the assembly was the emperor himself, who, though not baptized, and therefore not a full member of the church, was far too eminent a personage not to be welcomed enthusiastically.
Almost at the beginning of the council a creed presented by the Arians was rejected. Eusebius of Caesarea then offered the creed of his own Church. It was a sweet sounding confession, dating from before the controversy, and was, therefore, wholly indefinite as to the particular problems involved. "Walker, Williston A History of the Christian Church pg. 108. Charles Sribner's Sons copywrite 1959
"The creed of Eusebius of Caesarea. - The creed which Eusebius presented to the Nicene Council was of this expanded character, and ran as follows: ‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of (from) God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, the first-born of all creation, begotten of the Father before all ages; through whom also all things were made; who for our salvation
[124]
was made flesh and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory, to judge the living and dead; and in the Holy Spirit.’
H.N. Bate, History of the Church to 325, 2nd ed. London: Rivingtons, 1924. Hbk. pp.119-125.CHAPTER X The Council of Nicaea
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2010/09/specifically-begotton.html
7. a. The Son reveals the Father to us. Origen followed Neo-Platonism, which taught that from the Divine Being proceeds the Nous. The Son proceeds from the Father somewhat as the will proceeds from a human being. This procession is expressed in the conception of a generation (genesis) of the Son from the Father. But Origen made a larger contribution to the dogma of the Trinity by speaking of an eternal generation. The Father is always generating the Son...He looked upon the Logos as a Person, and taught that the Son, begotten of the Father from all eternity, was also from all eternity a hypostasis. Origen's teaching differed thus from all previous conceptions of a hypostatic Logos; especially was this true with reference to the Apologists who took the position that the hypostasizing of the Logos occurred in time for the purpose of creation and incarnation...This was the first advance made towards stating the Son's co-eternity with the Father.
A History of Christian thought Dr. J.L. Neve pg. 86-87
b. "We say that the Savior and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatures without possible comparison, in a wholly transcendent way but that they are exceeded by the Father by as much or even more than they exceeded the other beings." Origen quoted by Henry Crouzel pg. 203 and later Roger E. Olson The Story of Christian theology pg. 110
9.chalcedon creed
Therefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance (homoousios) with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer (theotokos); one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence (hypostasis), not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.
"2. Calvinism's Christology is generally Nestorian, and at best, quasi-Nestorian. This is because it makes the hypostatic union a product of the Incarnation (the WCF does) -- divine nature + human nature = person Jesus. Most Calvinists (like many westerns in general) erroneously confess Jesus to be a "human person." Turretinfan, as well as Gordon Clark and his disciples and other reformed giants like A.A. Hodge, openly defend Nestorius and his views." "Problems in Calvinism and Reformation Theology - Why I Left Redux: A New Debate And Why I Wouldn't Go Back
UPDATE: My First Rebuttal to Craig on Sola Scriptura is posted here
By: Jay Dyer
Westminster confession of faith.
ch. 8 of Christ the mediator.
"II. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature,(k) with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin:(l) being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance.(m) So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.(n) Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.(o)"
Nestorius was condemned for giving an analogy of the 2 natures joining like marriage. This is because it seems close to the Adoptionist heresy whereby the deity adopts the human nature. Adoptionism is heretical because the humanity then offers no actual divinity through which it can be the proper mediator.
I am not claiming that the WCF in such rank heresy as Gnosticism, however there is an apparent deviation in error to that direction.
"IV. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake;"
It is apparent that WCF has overcome the dilemma by exaggerating Christ's resolve as if he were never tempted. Yet Jesus denied his will and had so much temptation to overcome that he had sweated blood. Yes his obedience and resolve were strong but only after dealing with his own natural reservations.
10."So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God." The persons begin fading into the concept of "God" as opposed to sharing godhead.
As in the Athanasian creed "For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal." The Bible doesn't say equality in glory. Instead it has the Son and the Spirit submitting their glory unto the father.
1 Corinthians 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-testament-trinity-verses-catholic.html
11."The only difference between our division and that of Augustine is, that ours (in accordance with the words of our Saviour, 'All prophets and the Law prophesied until John,' Matth. Xi.13) distinguishes between gospel light and that more obscure dispensation of the world which proceeded it, while the other division simply distinguishes between the weakness of the Law and the strength of the gospel." John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion book II chapter XI section 10 pg. 395
13. While this is speculative, from Augustine we get the concept of the spiritual "kingdom of God" vs. the kingdom of man, and interpretation of the kingdom of heaven being the church is quite common. The belief that only the pastor should administer the sacraments is quite common; and is a sign of a priesthood mentality.
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2009/05/kingdom-and-church.html
15. http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2019/12/what-do-you-call-someone-who-steals.html
17. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=335
18. https://soteriology101.com/2019/03/11/was-st-augustine-the-first-to-introduce-calvinism-to-the-church/
