Calvinist historians on the soteriology of the early church

TomFL

Well-known member
Herman Bavinck: In the early church, at a time when it had to contend with pagan fatalism and gnostic naturalism, its representatives focused exclusively on the moral nature, freedom, and responsibility of humans and could not do justice, therefore, to the teaching of Scripture concerning the counsel of God. Though humans had been more or less corrupted by sin, they remained free and were able to accept the proffered grace of God. The church’s teaching did not include a doctrine of absolute predestination and irresistible grace.

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....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... They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will... this cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine..."

Robert Peterson and Michael Williams of Covenant Theological Seminary: "The Semi-Pelagians were convinced that Augustine's monergistic emphasis upon salvation by grace alone represented a significant departure from the traditional teaching of the church. And a survey of the thought of the apostolic father's shows that the argument is valid... In comparison to Augustine's monergistic doctrine of grace, the teachings of the apostolic fathers tended toward a synergistic view of redemption" (36).

Louis Berkhof: "Their representations are naturally rather indefinite, imperfect, and incomplete, and sometimes even erroneous and self-contradictory. Says Kahnis: "It stands as an assured fact, a fact knowing no exceptions, and acknowledged by all well versed in the matter, that all of the pre-Augustinian Fathers taught that in the appropriation of salvation there is a co-working of freedom and grace." Berkhof goes on to admit that "they do not hold to an entire corruption of the human will, and consequently adhere to the synergistic theory of regeneration..." (130).
Ken Wilson Rebuts James White - YouTube

Augustine was the first to teach a deterministic soteriology
 
Last edited:

civic

Well-known member
That was informative. But I will go on record by saying this Tom.

Neither was the Trinity developed until the same period in church history much like deterministic soteriology. So a developed doctrine post Apostles does not nullify the truth contained in those developed doctrines by the ECF's.

Would you agree ?

As a side not often I have to say I'm a biblical trinitarian and not use the creeds, ECF's etc..... while debating non believers in the trinity.

I stopped referring to myself as a calvinist because walls are automatically put up when someone hears that word. I'm only a C in regards to tulip. But as you know its not something I'm dogmatic about not something I think should divide fellowship between A's and C's.

hope this helps !!!
 

TomFL

Well-known member
That was informative. But I will go on record by saying this Tom.

Neither was the Trinity developed until the same period in church history much like deterministic soteriology. So a developed doctrine post Apostles does not nullify the truth contained in those developed doctrines by the ECF's.
Would you agree ?
I would agree the Trinity doctrine was developed over time but would also say the two are not analagous in that there was nothing contrary to it while Augustines doctrine was contrary to what the church held up to that time .

As a side not often I have to say I'm a biblical trinitarian and not use the creeds, ECF's etc..... while debating non believers in the trinity.

I stopped referring to myself as a calvinist because walls are automatically put up when someone hears that word. I'm only a C in regards to tulip. But as you know its not something I'm dogmatic about not something I think should divide fellowship between A's and C's.

hope this helps !!!
I agree and affirm you as my brother
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
That was informative. But I will go on record by saying this Tom.

Neither was the Trinity developed until the same period in church history much like deterministic soteriology. So a developed doctrine post Apostles does not nullify the truth contained in those developed doctrines by the ECF's.

A developed doctrine means a doctrine not taught by the apostles.

Would you agree ?

As a side not often I have to say I'm a biblical trinitarian and not use the creeds, ECF's etc..... while debating non believers in the trinity.

I stopped referring to myself as a calvinist because walls are automatically put up when someone hears that word. I'm only a C in regards to tulip. But as you know its not something I'm dogmatic about not something I think should divide fellowship between A's and C's.

hope this helps !!!
 

civic

Well-known member
A developed doctrine means a doctrine not taught by the apostles.
not true it just developed with a name attached to the doctrine. The Trinity is a perfect example, the word is not mentioned but the doctrine or concept is all over both testaments.

hope this helps !!!
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
not true it just developed with a name attached to the doctrine. The Trinity is a perfect example, the word is not mentioned but the doctrine or concept is all over both testaments.

hope this helps !!!

Then it did not need to be developed did it?

Have you never noticed that when Sabellianism appeared that nobody said, "Hey wait a minute this can't be right - we believe in a three person God which the apostles taught!" Nothing remotely like that ever happened. If the apostles had taught such a thing, there would not have been such a big debate within the church. Even the Roman bishop adopted Sabellianism. Did he not know the apostolic doctrine of the Trinity?

[Place your revisionist history here for all to see]
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Then it did not need to be developed did it?

Have you never noticed that when Sabellianism appeared that nobody said, "Hey wait a minute this can't be right - we believe in a three person God which the apostles taught!" Nothing remotely like that ever happened. If the apostles had taught such a thing, there would not have been such a big debate within the church. Even the Roman bishop adopted Sabellianism. Did he not know the apostolic doctrine of the Trinity?

[Place your revisionist history here for all to see]
Sibelius was a modelist. Yet you appear to be a unitarian. Is that correct ?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Herman Bavinck:
[...]
Loraine Boettner:
[...]
Robert Peterson and Michael Williams of Covenant Theological Seminary:
[...]
Louis Berkhof:
[...]

Funny, these are the exact same quotes, in the exact same order, from Leighton Flowers podcast.
Plagiarize much?

Augustine was the first to teach a deterministic soteriology

Really?

So Gen. 50:20, Ex. 4,7, Isa. 10:5-7, Acts, 4, Acts 13, Rom. 8, Eph. 1, and 1 Cor. 2 are all figments of our imagination?
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Funny, these are the exact same quotes, in the exact same order, from Leighton Flowers podcast.
Plagiarize much?



Really?

So Gen. 50:20, Ex. 4,7, Isa. 10:5-7, Acts, 4, Acts 13, Rom. 8, Eph. 1, and 1 Cor. 2 are all figments of our imagination?
Are you capable of reading

The reference is a youtube video

and was given

Ken Wilson Rebuts James White - YouTube

Hello

Yes really as none of those verses proves differently
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Herman Bavinck: In the early church, at a time when it had to contend with pagan fatalism and gnostic naturalism, its representatives focused exclusively on the moral nature, freedom, and responsibility of humans and could not do justice, therefore, to the teaching of Scripture concerning the counsel of God. Though humans had been more or less corrupted by sin, they remained free and were able to accept the proffered grace of God. The church’s teaching did not include a doctrine of absolute predestination and irresistible grace.

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....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... They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will... this cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine..."

Robert Peterson and Michael Williams of Covenant Theological Seminary: "The Semi-Pelagians were convinced that Augustine's monergistic emphasis upon salvation by grace alone represented a significant departure from the traditional teaching of the church. And a survey of the thought of the apostolic father's shows that the argument is valid... In comparison to Augustine's monergistic doctrine of grace, the teachings of the apostolic fathers tended toward a synergistic view of redemption" (36).

Louis Berkhof: "Their representations are naturally rather indefinite, imperfect, and incomplete, and sometimes even erroneous and self-contradictory. Says Kahnis: "It stands as an assured fact, a fact knowing no exceptions, and acknowledged by all well versed in the matter, that all of the pre-Augustinian Fathers taught that in the appropriation of salvation there is a co-working of freedom and grace." Berkhof goes on to admit that "they do not hold to an entire corruption of the human will, and consequently adhere to the synergistic theory of regeneration..." (130).
Ken Wilson Rebuts James White - YouTube

Augustine was the first to teach a deterministic soteriology

This entire diatribe begs a very OBVIOUS question:

1) Are the ECF's our infallible authority for God's truth?
Or is the Bible our infallible authority for God's truth?

Over and over again, the main tool I see in the pocket of heretics is to throw the Bible in the garbage, in favour of the "buffet" of the ECF's.
 

Iconoclast

Active member
Funny, these are the exact same quotes, in the exact same order, from Leighton Flowers podcast.
Plagiarize much?



Really?

So Gen. 50:20, Ex. 4,7, Isa. 10:5-7, Acts, 4, Acts 13, Rom. 8, Eph. 1, and 1 Cor. 2 are all figments of our imaginatioe

Flowers and his followers go back-and-forth pulling a paragraph here, a sentence there,trying in vain to piece together enough false ideas to confuse simple minded people.
of all the writing and try to get them the say what they don't say in and of themselves so I mean this is the kind of thing it gets a little tedious . Some person just keeps doing this and you know It really brings in the question if the person is even serious.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
I'm really not concerned about what the AF's or ECF's taught.

I hold to sola Scriptura.
I'm sorry that you clearly don't.
Sorry but determining what the Fathers held does not mean one does not hold to so9la scriptura

That is a non sequitur

and an attempt to poison the well because you don't like the information
 
Last edited:

TomFL

Well-known member
This entire diatribe begs a very OBVIOUS question:

1) Are the ECF's our infallible authority for God's truth?
Or is the Bible our infallible authority for God's truth?

Over and over again, the main tool I see in the pocket of heretics is to throw the Bible in the garbage, in favour of the "buffet" of the ECF's.
Well the main tool I have presented on the forum is not the church Fathers but the scriptures

And in case you forgot you challenged me to produce such evidence

Now you want to balk ?
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Funny, these are the exact same quotes, in the exact same order, from Leighton Flowers podcast.
Plagiarize much?



Really?

So Gen. 50:20, Ex. 4,7, Isa. 10:5-7, Acts, 4, Acts 13, Rom. 8, Eph. 1, and 1 Cor. 2 are all figments of our imagination?
Yes and you already posted that and the answer does not change
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
That was informative. But I will go on record by saying this Tom.

I stopped referring to myself as a calvinist because walls are automatically put up when someone hears that word. I'm only a C in regards to tulip. But as you know its not something I'm dogmatic about not something I think should divide fellowship between A's and C's.

hope this helps !!!
Me too. Of course it's different here, we're expected to pick sides. I visited my brother's Baptist Church, and they just knew me as Carl's brother. I said something in the Sunday School Class that made everyone simultaneously Gasp in awe; it was quite an experience (Glory to God Alone). The teacher said she wanted me to visit every Sunday. ~ I've now forgotten what I said, Lol...

I Gar-own-tee-U that if they knew I was a Calvinist, that wouldn't have happened...
 
Last edited:

TomFL

Well-known member
<sigh>

Only posted it once.
You simply responded to it twice, because you can't be bothered to pay attention to anything.
No wonder your ramblings are worthless.
Except you are unable to refute those so called ramblings

and BTW you need to deal with your own failure to pay attention

when the reference of the video was clearly given and you falsely claimed plagiarism




f
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Except you are unable to refute those so called ramblings

What is there for me to "refute"?
I'm sola Scriptura.
What the ECF's taught is IRRELEVANT.
You may as well quote Jim Jones or Charles Manson.

Your false claim is refuted by Gen. 50:20, Isa. 10:5-7, Acts 4:27-28,
Rom. 8:29-30, Eph. 1:4-11, etc. etc.

But I know... Those citations are not "ECF's".
They're "only" SCRIPTURE.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
What is there for me to "refute"?
I'm sola Scriptura.
What the ECF's taught is IRRELEVANT.
You may as well quote Jim Jones or Charles Manson.

Your false claim is refuted by Gen. 50:20, Isa. 10:5-7, Acts 4:27-28,
Rom. 8:29-30, Eph. 1:4-11, etc. etc.

But I know... Those citations are not "ECF's".
They're "only" SCRIPTURE.
That is funny you give no exegeted references and not even the verses themselves but balk with I produced multiple ops defining regeneration that you complained about the volume but then turned around and claimed there was nothing to address because it was not exegeted and now you what us to accept your bald references. Talk about a double standard
 
Top