tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post8351311200857792587..comments2023-12-25T09:58:54.563-06:00Comments on The Christian Freethinker: Predestination and Grace in Catholic TheologyMark Hausamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-69675605825371770542022-05-01T13:32:14.781-05:002022-05-01T13:32:14.781-05:00Appreciating the time and effort you put into your...Appreciating the time and effort you put into your website and in depth information you offer on online catholic theology degree. I would also like to recommend to know more about <a href="https://www.stbernards.edu/master-of-arts-theological-studies" rel="nofollow"> online catholic theology masters </a>Riyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13411708141547646386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-14595271994047714982016-07-14T17:37:01.971-05:002016-07-14T17:37:01.971-05:00I have your book which I printed out and had spira...<br />I have your book which I printed out and had spiral bound. It is very well organized and presented! I have lots of hand written notes all over it. I will give it to you before you go so you can read my impressions. <br /><br />I think the following Scriptures in Jeremiah disprove that God antecedently foreordained all things that come to pass. However all the Divine Scriptures fit perfectly with St John Damascene's Teaching on Free will and Predestination, even the ones you present in your book to support your thesis. St John's teaching is found here: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/exact_freewill.aspx)God is sovereign but the way he excercises his sovereignty is very different that what is presented in a determinist system. The issue is the very Character of God.<br /><br /><br />Jeremiah 19:3-6 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)<br /><br />3 You shall say, ‘Hear the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon this place that the ears of every one who hears of it will tingle. <br /><br />4 Because the people have forsaken me, and have profaned this place by burning incense in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, <br /><br />5 and have built the high places of Ba′al to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Ba′al, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; <br /><br />6 therefore, behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when this place shall no more be called To′pheth, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of Slaughter.<br /><br /><br />Jeremiah 32:33-35 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)<br /><br />33 They have turned to me their back and not their face; and though I have taught them persistently they have not listened to receive instruction. <br /><br />34 They set up their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to defile it. <br /><br />35 They built the high places of Ba′al in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.<br /><br />(If these statements were meant to support the theory of the Open Theists who deny divine foreknowledge, it would have been worded differently. For example, it may have said that it didn't enter his heart that they would have done xyz. I agree that God foreknows all things but he did not antecendently pre-determine all things. All things are subject to God's governance through his antedendent, consequent or permissive willing. Nothing happens outside of his will. All three forms of God's will have to be taken together as God's Sovereign governance. <br /><br />Here is an example that comes to mind of these three modes of willing:<br /><br />37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!{ PERMISSIVE WILL} How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings,{ANTECEDENT WILL} and you would not{PERMISSIVE WILL}! 38 Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. {CONSEQUENT WILL} 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.{CONSEQUENT WILL}’”<br /><br />I am a big fan of Saint John of Damascus<br /><br />I am gladly supportive, by the way, of all that Rome does around the world in support of life, social justice and morality. I dont want to sound all negative about western Christendom. I am just focusing in on these particular teachings that we are discussing.<br /><br />I look forward to meeting with you before you go.<br /><br />God Bless,<br />Deacon John<br /><br /><br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06557780849523482378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-35452097528159842272016-07-13T01:04:03.183-05:002016-07-13T01:04:03.183-05:00It was a great vacation. I got to meet some clerg...It was a great vacation. I got to meet some clergy and re-connect with some that I had not seen in a while. That was fun. Spokane Washington was a fun town to visit. We all enjoyed our stay there. <br /><br />Thanks for the kind remarks about Orthodoxy and the Eastern Rite Liturgy :) I hope when you move to NC you will make your way back to SLC for a visit sometimes. If you do, maybe we can get together. <br /><br />I am glad you all came to our 4th of July party. It was good times. <br /><br />God Bless,<br />Deacon John<br /><br />"Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. Unless the Lord keep the city, he watcheth in vain that keepeth it".Psalm 127:1 DRB<br /><br /> <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06557780849523482378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-33965779671191236182016-07-11T11:06:22.691-05:002016-07-11T11:06:22.691-05:00"My concern is that God may be so mischaracte..."My concern is that God may be so mischaracterized in this view that the deity presented may actually a philosophically contructed idol. May it never be."<br /><br />I understand and respect your concerns here. I believe, however, that they are based in philosophical confusion. But so long as you think that my views deny freedom, moral responsibility, make God evil, etc., you cannot but fight against them if you would follow your moral duty as you understand it, nor would it be charitable for you give me the impression my views are OK if you truly think they are not. So I respect and appreciate your attempts to get me to see what you think you see on these points. Of course, my intentions are similar in the other direction.<br /><br />"It's been lively."<br /><br />Yes, it has been. :-) I find the conversations productive and I am happy that we can be friends and talk about these things.<br /><br />Our conversations are so often focused on areas of disagreement that it may create the impression that we are more at odds than not. Because we are in different churches, it is necessary for us to have reasons for our respective positions, and those reasons must involve reasons why we are <i>not</i> on the other side, and so polemics are unavoidable. However, my problems with your theology are very few overall. On the whole, I love Orthodoxy and share the vast majority of its positions and beliefs. I also love the Eastern liturgy. I just wanted to say that. :-)<br /><br />Have a good vacation!Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-8022795144473257072016-07-11T10:58:31.328-05:002016-07-11T10:58:31.328-05:00"When we use our philosophy to judge holy tra..."When we use our philosophy to judge holy tradition instead of letting Holy Tradition judge our philosophy,that is a problem."<br /><br />Quite true, so long as we also recognize that reason is a true source of authoritative truth. If the Tradition of the Church taught that 2+2=5, then that would simply prove the that the Tradition was not infallible and would probably logically drive us into Sola Scriptura. It would be foolish to agree with Tradition in such a case and affirm that 2+2=5. (I'm assuming, of course, that the terms are clear, etc.) Ultimately, speaking on the level of intellectual motivation (which is only one aspect of the whole thing, of course, so don't get me wrong here), we are Christians, hopefully, because we think the objective evidence points to Christianity. If we don't think it does, then we are liars if we are Christians, for it is inherently dishonest to affirm a position without or contrary to objective evidence. Therefore, it is evident that we must ultimately rely on our reason. God gave it to us, and it is evident that we are to use it, so when we examine evidence and come to conclusions and embrace those conclusions we are acting in obedience to God and to his honor. Yes, we have to be careful in our reasoning. Yes, we have to take all facts into careful consideration, listen to everyone, etc., but none of this negates that reason is a source of truth. I say all of this to emphasize that we cannot simply put the rational arguments aside when we think about these issues. We can't check our brains at the door when we do theology. It is not respectful to Holy Tradition if we do so, but rather it is disrespectful to God, who is the author both of Holy Tradition and of reason. So if I have logical reasons to hold certain views of predestination, free will, etc., which I do, then it would be dishonest of me simply to dismiss these out of alleged "respect for Holy Tradition," even if I was convinced (as I am certainly not) that Holy Tradition was against what I believed reason was telling me. I am not infallible, so I must always check my work and be careful; but I cannot deny what God seems to be saying through any source, whether Scripture, reason, Holy Tradition, or whatever.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-21577745845155494922016-07-11T10:49:31.229-05:002016-07-11T10:49:31.229-05:00My sense is that it is unlikely I will find any cl...My sense is that it is unlikely I will find any clearly-developed articulation of an Augustinian-style presentation of predestinarian doctrine in the Fathers before St. Augustine (outside of Scripture). However, I would add that I suspect you would be hard pressed to find clear formulations of your own position either. What you will find are articulations that are less clear and that you will assume support your view because your assumptions about the logical implications of Augustinianism. Your quotation from St. Irenaeus is a good example of this. I did not disagree with anything in that quotation, but you interpreted it as being against me because you assume I deny freedom, etc.<br /><br />So, in short, I don't make the claim that I can find a clear Augustinian system in the Fathers before St. Augustine. But I don't think you will be able to find much in support of your view either that is clearly worked out. You have to remember that my view is actually quite broad and allows a number of ways of formulating it. If you read my article on Molinism - http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2016/05/clearing-up-some-concerns-about-molinism.html - you know how complex these things can be. Or my article on Jansenism - http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2016/06/what-was-wrong-with-jansenism.html. I would be interested to see how much you could find in the pre-Augustinian Fathers that would actually be clearly and definitively opposed to my viewpoint. For example, perhaps you'll find some statements that oppose necessity and the idea that the will is determined by nature to good or evil. Well then, you'll just prove that the Father is in the company of the Westminster Confession (Chapter 9), which won't help your case very much:<br /><br />"God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil."<br /><br />Now, if your ideas about the logical implications of my views are correct, then the Fathers are diametically opposed to me, and that will be easy to show. But I won't grant that my views deny freedom, affirm necessity of such a sort that circumvents free will, make God the positive creator of evil, etc. On the contrary, I wholeheartedly agree with all the Fathers in rejecting these ideas.<br /><br />So, in short, my sense is that the Fathers before St. Augustine were in a very early period of development on these ideas because they had not yet faced the Pelagian controversy and were occupied with other matters. But I deny that the universal consensus of the pre-Augustinian Fathers was against St. Augustine, and I certainly deny that the Church ever definitively repudiated St. Augustine's ideas or affirmed contrary ones before or after St. Augustine.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-40690071604790469272016-07-11T10:36:15.818-05:002016-07-11T10:36:15.818-05:00"Can you produce ANY Holy Fathers that teach ..."Can you produce ANY Holy Fathers that teach that God fore-ordained everything that comes to pass including all evil and filth and makes certain that the said things(including all filth and evil) comes to pass infallibly and unchangeably and not at all because he foresaw it in his foreknowledge but rather it exists in his foreknowledge because he so pre-ordained it?<br /><br />Can you produce ANY Holy Fathers in the east at any time or in the west before Augustine that taught that God individually and unconditionally elected the individuals he planned to save and not at all based on his foreknowledge of their faith and good works and the rest would never be converted because he declined to give them an efficacious grace?"<br /><br />First of all, the biblical writers, Old and New Testament, teach God's predestination of all things as well as unconditional election many times. You've got my book, Why Christianity is True. In one of the appendices I laid out a good deal of this evidence, and it can be found many other places as well of course. The Apostle Paul teaches this doctrine a number of times in his writings, for example, particularly in Romans 9. I know you disagree with my interpretation of Paul in that chapter, but I've not found the alternative arguments compelling. St. Paul seems pretty clearly to be teaching unconditional election there.<br /><br />When we get into the early Fathers after New Testament times, there is a bit of a shift, particularly as the Fathers begin interacting with Greek philosophy. During the period before St. Augustine, my impression from what I have seen thus far is that the Fathers did not work out anything like a clear system with regard to free will, predestination, etc. The main opponent in their thinking appears to be a kind of necessitarian Stoicism that would rule out free will and moral responsibility, so they tend to emphasize free will and moral responsibility. Sometimes they say things that sound a bit Semipelagian or even at times Pelagian, looking at their words from the vantage point of later clarity (just as many of the early Fathers say things at times that sound a bit off in terms of Trinitarian theology, the doctrine of the two natures in one person of Christ, and other things). Doctrine develops in the Church, and oftentimes it exists in an imprecise and somewhat unclear state until a serious challenge arises that motivates the Church to define something more clearly. It is with the writings of St. Augustine that we begin to get a clearer system worked out and Semipelagianism clearly rejected. The Pope affirmed these developments, and they were generally followed in the Western church, but you're right that the Eastern churches didn't pay as much attention to these matters or follow this development as much. I'm not aware of any clear, unified, or formal rejection of St. Augustine's thought by Eastern churches, at least until after the split between the Eastern churches and the Catholic Church was more fully completed and recognized (and even to this day, as I said a few posts ago, I'm not sure there is any formal, authoritative response).Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-18050910844915344142016-07-09T03:02:59.127-05:002016-07-09T03:02:59.127-05:00Trying to make our views fit into the paradigm of ...<br /><br />Trying to make our views fit into the paradigm of the other is like hammering a square peg in a round hole. I agree that we do share some common values because of Catholic Tradition, which is nice. <br /><br />It seems to me that it would be more correct according to Biblical Verbage to make God primary in the Divine call and Man primary in the Human response. Mainly because man can resist God's grace,if they want to. No one can thwart God calling someone, so he is primary. But when the call is effectual in a positive response then it is 100/100 percent. I would add that it was effectual BECAUSE the resistance didn't occur, rather than saying the resistance didn't occur because the grace was a special kind called effectual grace not given to all. I think this is the more biblical perspective. I believe a person rejecting God has nothing to do with God declining to give them a grace that he gave to the converting one. I believe the person converting had everything to do with God enabling them through grace and calling them. We correspond to the grace given according Saint Paul. He says, " Neglect not the grace of God". "Stir up the grace of God."working together with him, I exhort you to receive not the grace of God in vain" and so on. Perhaps he works in us to choose conversion but he does not actualize the choice to heed the call to conversion. Without his potentializing the choice (with everything that includes e. g enlightening the heart, conviction of sin etc etc,) we could not actualize the choice. But we've gone round and round about that. <br /><br />My main contention is that none of the eastern fathers have believed these uniquely Augustinian doctrines and none of the western ones before Augustine believed them or confessed individual unconditional election or efficacious grace . They are therefore contrary to Holy Tradition. They are human innovations based on speculation. None of them had the first cause of everything people do idea either. If you could prove otherwise that would be compelling. <br /><br />We believe in the consensus of the Holy Fathers and that this consensus is guided by the Holy Spirit. These novel teachings,though well intentioned, are a break from this patristic consensus. Most of the Latin distinctives has a foundation in truth. They have just added layer upon layer upon layer of scholastic speculations that morphs what was once the pure truth into a divisive false doctrine. <br /><br />When we use our philosophy to judge holy tradition instead of letting Holy Tradition judge our philosophy,that is a problem. One can have a very tight knit philosophical system that is logically consistent with the first principles of that system and the first principles can themselves be mistaken or seriously heretical. <br /><br />I have a couple questions:<br /><br />Can you produce ANY Holy Fathers that teach that God fore-ordained everything that comes to pass including all evil and filth and makes certain that the said things(including all filth and evil) comes to pass infallibly and unchangeably and not at all because he foresaw it in his foreknowledge but rather it exists in his foreknowledge because he so pre-ordained it?<br /><br />Can you produce ANY Holy Fathers in the east at any time or in the west before Augustine that taught that God individually and unconditionally elected the individuals he planned to save and not at all based on his foreknowledge of their faith and good works and the rest would never be converted because he declined to give them an efficacious grace? <br /><br />If the answer to these two questions are yes, I invite you to do so. These are reasonable questions for a Catholic Christian to ask,I would think. <br /><br />My concern is that God may be so mischaracterized in this view that the deity presented may actually a philosophically contructed idol. May it never be. <br /><br />I am on a vacation with my family and only have my phone to be online so I will be refraining from posting for a while. <br /><br />It's been lively. Thanks for taking the time. <br /><br /><br /><br />Deacon John<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06557780849523482378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-5744337278665080332016-07-08T13:31:41.229-05:002016-07-08T13:31:41.229-05:00With regard to the question of the literalness of ...With regard to the question of the literalness of the fire, listen to Fr. John Hardon commenting on the Council of Florence:<br /><br /><i>Theologically, there is less clarity about the nature of this pain of sense. Writers in the Latin tradition are quite unanimous that the fire of purgatory is real and not metaphorical. They argue from the common teaching of the Latin Fathers, of some Greek Fathers, and of certain papal statements like that of Pope Innocent IV, who spoke of “a transitory fire” (DB 456). Nevertheless, at the union council of Florence, the Greeks were not required to abandon the opposite opinion, that the fire of purgatory is not a physical reality.</i><br /><br />http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Eschatology/Eschatology_006.htm<br /><br />It is not a part of Catholic doctrine to affirm definitively the literalness of purgatorial fire.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-17006417534382504412016-07-08T13:29:52.226-05:002016-07-08T13:29:52.226-05:00I don't see any difference between what the co...I don't see any difference between what the council says and Roman Catholic doctrine on the subject of purgatory. All Catholic doctrine teaches is that after death, those who are not adequately purged of sins though in a state of grace endure a kind of purging that is analogous to our process of sanctification on earth before entering the presence of God. There is no official Catholic teaching regarding exactly where purgatory is located, or other more minor issues. There may be differences of opinion between various Latin and Greek commentators through history, but there is nothing in what the council says here that disagrees with official Catholic teaching, and indeed it affirms pretty much the whole of what the Catholic Church affirms. Here's the Church's teaching on Purgatory from the Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm):<br /><br /><i>III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY<br /><br />1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.<br /><br />1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607<br /><br />As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608<br />1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:<br /><br />Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611</i>Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-61570922947812087462016-07-08T12:44:23.358-05:002016-07-08T12:44:23.358-05:00This is not a third place or purgatorial Fire. It ...This is not a third place or purgatorial Fire. It is deliverance from Hades itself. The judgement has not injured yet and Hades will be thrown into Gehenna, the Lake of Fire. The difference is that Latins consider Hades to be the eternal final hell. We do not. Souls cannot cross into Paradise on their own initiative or ability. Christ has the power. he has the keys of Hades and death. Our prayers can help in many ways known to God. They can receive consolation or even deliverance. But it isn't heaven,hell and purgatory but Just Hades and heaven/paradise. The Final hell Will commence after the Last Judgement. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06557780849523482378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-74808960843529193992016-07-08T12:14:51.895-05:002016-07-08T12:14:51.895-05:00"When one thinks there is intrinsic worthines..."When one thinks there is intrinsic worthiness in their own works and that they have earned salvation or that they deserve it they have become guilty of self righteousness and have fallen from grace. We receive salvation through union with Christ by which union we become partakers of the divine nature in order to regain the likeness of God which we lost in the fall. (2 Peter 1:3-11)We are in the image of God and are called to grow into the likeness through communion with Christ(theosis).This is the healing of the human person. This is personal salvation in the Church."<br /><br />Amen! My only clarification is that I would say that the good works God produces in us are indeed worthy of his praise, for they are works of the divine Spirit--but we cannot claim ultimate credit for them because they are gifts of God. <br /><br />The key point is this: We are sinners, enemies of God. Left to ourselves, that's all we've ultimately got. What Christ does for us is turn us into righteous children of God. That turning is a gift of his grace. Again, we may argue over how this works out on the deeper metaphysical level, but so long as we agree with this, we're doing basically well on this issue.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-52577789102158397252016-07-08T12:10:05.163-05:002016-07-08T12:10:05.163-05:00"How can Jesus have two natural wills with th..."How can Jesus have two natural wills with the Human will responsive with the Divine will, in your determinist view? I think monothelitism is what you would be left with.With God controlling both sides of the divine/human relationship, there can be only monergism/monothelitism."<br /><br />You say this because you can't conceive in your view of a real will that is not independent. If God ordains my choices, in your view this must mean that I don't really make any choices at all. But I don't accept your premise of "where God is, I am not," because I recognize that "in him we live and move and have our being."<br /><br />"It never says they were made humble. They humbled themselves."<br /><br />There's your false dichotomy again. I say it's both. The Bible all over the place speaks of our conversion as our own work and as God's work.<br /><br />"There was nothing in their acts which created worthiness in them or healed them."<br /><br />But a good will is the essence of righteousness. We cannot escape from the dilemma here by trying to portray the act of conversion as an unimportant thing. It is the heart of the matter. A bad will is a fundamental problem, and a good will is our fundamental salvation, for Christ came to turn us from darkness to light, from enemies to children. We can't trivialize our good will: "God does just about everything! Sure, I do a <i>teensy little bit</i>, like turning from sin to righteousness, but he does everything else!"Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-75759352471991126822016-07-08T12:02:57.012-05:002016-07-08T12:02:57.012-05:00Here's the Jerusalem council's statements ...Here's the Jerusalem council's statements regarding purgatory, from Decree XVIII:<br /><br />"We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought; — for when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment, nor condemnation are complete. For after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved <151> itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation forsooth.<br /><br />And such as though envolved in mortal sins have not departed in despair, but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance — by pouring forth tears, forsooth, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in fine {in summation ELC} by shewing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbour, and which the Catholic Church hath from the beginning rightly called satisfaction — of these and such like the souls depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from thence, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers <152> of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice availing in the highest degree; which each offereth particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offereth daily for all alike; it being, of course, understood that we know not the time of their release. For that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment we know and believe; but when we know not."<br /><br />Wow, if this really <i>could</i> be agreed upon by the Orthodox as their official theology, polemics against Rome would certainly change! And in other areas addressed by this council as well. These statements have "scholasticism" written all over them!Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-6213110524511630452016-07-08T11:59:29.425-05:002016-07-08T11:59:29.425-05:00"The council of Orange, although there is muc..."The council of Orange, although there is much that is commendable in it, has never been received in the east."<br /><br />Well, it should have been, because the Apostolic See approved it. But that's another issue. :-)<br /><br />"Someone else I know has expressed this idea :)"<br /><br />Indeed, and Rome was right (as usual)! :-)<br /><br />"The Decrees of the Council of Jerusalem(1672) have great authority in the Church, as they were signed by all 5 Patriarchs including Russia."<br /><br />That's great, but I'm sure you are well aware that the authority and validity of various aspects of this council's conclusions are widely debated in the Orthodox world. Even Wikipedia knows about it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Jerusalem_(1672) I've read a number of times Orthodox complaining about the "western" influence on the synod's formulations. For one example, many Orthodox today complain about the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, but much that they complain about is affirmed in that council. (I'll quote from it in the next post.)<br /><br />"So we do have a definite view on these issues."<br /><br />But Orthodox admit that they have no clear way of knowing even how to tell whether a council is ecumenical or not. There is no agreement on even how to define Orthodoxy. It is true that Orthodox in general hold certain views, particular views defined in the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and many or most of them hold other things, like the viewpoint on free will you are defending. Some of them, possibly, may even hold to the Jerusalem council's viewpoint on purgatory, though you certainly don't get that impression from listening to Orthodox polemics about Rome! :-) But every Orthodox I have talked to or read on this subject admits that there is no universal, agreed-upon, formally-decided viewpoint on how to tell when the Church is teaching in such a way as to be infallible and authoritative. So, maybe at this time the pendulum swings against Augustine. Perhaps in the future it will swing back. Formally speaking, I don't see that you have the authority to define your views on this subject to be the official views of Orthodoxy, though you certainly seem to be in the vast majority.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-5071730900775631702016-07-08T11:37:04.806-05:002016-07-08T11:37:04.806-05:00"Semi-palagianism is the false doctrine that ..."Semi-palagianism is the false doctrine that we initiate our conversion without grace and grace comes later."<br /><br />That's part of it, but the real heart of Semipelagianism is the idea that our good will comes from us and not from God. This is clear from reading the Canons of Orange. It's great to say that grace is with us, helping us from the beginning, but if we still say that our own good will is from ourselves and not from grace, who cares really whether we say that we have it before grace starts or after grace starts helping us? The real issue is whether we have our good will as a gift of grace or not.<br /><br />Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-83362546540689109042016-07-08T11:34:13.540-05:002016-07-08T11:34:13.540-05:00I'm using strong language, but let me temper i...I'm using strong language, but let me temper it by saying that of course I don't think you are a Mormon (or a polytheist). But I do think that you've got elements foreign to Christianity in your thinking that are causing you to argue with the Augustinian view that you don't even realize are there. I'm using strong language partly to put them as strongly as I can in front of your viewpoint so you can see them for what they are. "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you to will and to work for his good pleasure." My part <i>is</i> God's part, because I exist in the context of God and all the good I have comes from him.<br /><br />Please tell me if you think I'm being too offensive here with how I say certain things. My intention is not to be offensive, but to do the best I can to get you to see what I see. Sometimes speaking very bluntly seems the best way to do that, but it makes me uncomfortable and I want you to feel free to tell me if you think I've crossed any lines. I hope I don't come across as sounding too arrogant either. I don't mean to, but I do think for sure that I'm right about this, and that is reflected in how I say things. I am always open to correction, and you have helped to correct me in the past (I'm not a Presbyterian anymore, for example!). If I'm wrong about any of this, hopefully I'll come to see it. But I don't think that's the way things are in this case. :-)Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-8326912401865545052016-07-08T11:34:03.562-05:002016-07-08T11:34:03.562-05:00"This is not even mentioning the work he is d..."This is not even mentioning the work he is doing in our souls to conform us to the image of his son."<br /><br />In your view, this work cannot include actually turning us from evil to good, for God cannot do that, for that would destroy the independence of the will as you have construed things.<br /><br />"His part is overwhelmingly more important than our part. Our conversion would be impossible without him."<br /><br />This is a kind of division that we need to get over. The more I think about, the more ironic I think it is that you chose to present your view as similar to incarnational theology. For in actuality, your view is much more analogous to Nestorianism or Monophysitism. It is my view that says that the very same things that I do in salvation God does as well. I will and work, because my willing and working is also God's willing and working. It is both myself and God 100%, but my willing is a result of God's willing. But in your view, you can't stand for it to be that way, but you feel you must say that what God does I don't do and vice versa. God has his part, and I have mine. You can't conceive of putting my part under the category of his part as well. For you, if God does something, then I can't be doing that thing; I must be inactive, passive. So when I say that God does everything, in your mind that translates into "I don't do anything at all, I have no part to play, I'm not even a real being." In your view, where God is, he must squeeze me out. We must occupy separate spaces, like humans walking together down the street. I cannot say of that other person walking down the street that "in him I live and move and have my being," but St. Paul says that about our relationship with God. That's what makes our relationship with God unique. Where my human neighbor is, I am squeezed out. But where God is--everywhere--I have ample space for myself. One of the fundamental flaws in your viewpoint is that ultimately you picture God and me as two independent beings walking down the street of life together, working together, each of us occupying our own space. Where God comes to an end, I begin, and vice versa. But to think this way is to make God a mere creature like us. I am continually reminded of my dialogue with philosophical Mormons, because they grasp this. They have the same view of our relationship with God that you are presenting, and they absolutely hate creation ex nihilo because they recognize that it is utterly at odds with their view. They know very well that creation ex nihilo leads right to Augustine, and they hate it!Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-59062491436853144402016-07-08T11:15:04.357-05:002016-07-08T11:15:04.357-05:00"Think about it.. If God controls both sides ..."Think about it.. If God controls both sides in the relationship meticulously, relationship is meaningless."<br /><br />I have thought about it, and I don't grant your point. I don't see your point. I think you are imagining God invading another person's personal space, circumventing and conquering his will, and pushing himself on the person without his consent. But this is an image of your own imagination, not the viewpoint of Augustinians. As humans, we know we cannot orchestrate another person's choices and actions entirely unless we destroy his will and turn him into a puppet without a will. But we must not forget that God is not just another human! All being is under his control, which means that nothing can happen that is not part of his eternal plan. Everything that occurs in the world occurs because God specifically caused or allowed it to occur. God creates each new moment in time. This follows from the fact that if God were to cease to maintain the world, it would vanish. The past, by itself, is not enough to produce the future. It is <i>God</i> who is the Creator of past, present, and future. So everything that exists and occurs in each moment in time is either something God positive produced (positive being, like light) or negatively permitted (negative "being," like darkness).<br /><br />In light of this, it follows necessarily that God has meticulous control over everything that happens, including the free choices of men. These choices are not First Causes that happen in a causal vacuum, and so they are under the control of God just as much as everything else. There is no incompatibility between the idea that God meticulously controls what occurs and the idea that we are real beings with real wills who can have real relationships. We just have to get over the fallacious idea that only independent being or First-Causal being is "real" being. In effect, that idea amounts to the position that there can be no such thing as created being at all, that the only real being is God. Created being is real being too, but it is created--which includes the idea of complete dependence or contingency. So yes, everything I do is under God's control--because of the simple fact that I am not God. But, at the same time, I am a real being and I have real freedom and relationships. God's control in my life does not come through his circumventing or overpowering my will. When he brings me to himself, he does so through moral means--that is, through means consistent with the nature of will. He uses persuasion, not coercion. But he's an excellent persuader, to put it mildly! Of course he is, if you think about <i>who</i> he is!Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-87230394762322503282016-07-08T11:03:49.621-05:002016-07-08T11:03:49.621-05:00"When speaking of salvation, there is the gen..."When speaking of salvation, there is the general or objective economy and the personal subjective economy."<br /><br />The problem is that we can't truly separate these. What did Christ's objective work of salvation do? It brought us out of darkness to light, made us children of God from enemies. Our subjective change from sin to righteousness is an inherent part of this. If I am the one, and not God, who contributes the change from darkness to light--as would be the case if I, not God, am the source of the good will--then Christ's objective work didn't really save me; I saved myself.<br /><br />"If God Just gave out Good wills everyone would get one as his antecedent will is for all to be saved."<br /><br />His antecedent will is for all to be saved--meaning that, in itself considered, he prefers the salvation of all. But his consequent will is not for all to be saved--for, all things considered, he chooses not to grant a good will to all. If you say that, all things considered, God would prefer all people to be saved, then you have to say that God's highest ideal for how he would like creation to turn out is not how creation actually will turn out, which is to create a fundamental and ultimate dichotomy between God and reality, allowing God to be thwarted by ultimate reality, which implies that God is not really God but merely one power in the midst of a universe of conflicting powers. This is polytheism.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-23934707862755780722016-07-07T22:05:35.745-05:002016-07-07T22:05:35.745-05:00The council of Orange, although there is much that...The council of Orange, although there is much that is commendable in it, has never been received in the east. It is Rome absolutizing Blessed Augustine's novel viewpoints as they evidently became convinced that it was the only possible alternative to Palagianism. Someone else I know has expressed this idea :)<br /><br />The Decrees of the Council of Jerusalem(1672) have great authority in the Church, as they were signed by all 5 Patriarchs including Russia. When the Anglicans wanted to unite with us, our Bishops made it a requirement that they accept the Decrees of the council of Jerusalem 1672. So we do have a definite view on these issues. All of TULIP is rejected.<br /><br />All Christians believe in God's sovereignty(I hope) but there is disagreement on how he exercises it.Jerry Walls, a Wesleyan, who often debates Calvinists said that John Piper gave a teaching on "How can a sovereign God love?" Jerry said a better question would have been. "How does the God who is Love exercise his sovereignty." <br /><br />God's governs through three modes of willing: Antecedant, Consequent, and Concessional/permissive. These are all exercises of his Sovereignty. <br /><br />How can Jesus have two natural wills with the Human will responsive with the Divine will, in your determinist view? I think monothelitism is what you would be left with.With God controlling both sides of the divine/human relationship, there can be only monergism/monothelitism.This is what the 5th and 6th Ecumenical councils were about.<br /><br />2.)"All our righteousness is a gift of God in entirety". <br /><br />If by this you mean, that humans participate (but actually contibute nothing) toward their own conversion to God, then I disagree. This notion would be against numerous scriptures and the Apostolic faith. our personal consent is not effected through grace "alone" but rather through grace working with us. The Divine Scriptures always speak of one humbling HIMSELF...it is something THEY do as God is working with them through grace. It is in RESPONSE to God's gracious initiative toward them. It never says they were made humble. They humbled themselves. This is synergy. When Jesus healed the sick, he would give them something to do e. g go to the pool and wash etc. There was nothing in their acts which created worthiness in them or healed them. He wanted their co-operation in what he was doing. The healing came from Christ but they did something too. <br /><br />He gave us the Sacraments, the Holy Mysteries to apply to us personally what he accomplished objectively. Now God commands all everywhere to repent and believe the Good News.This we cannot do without the grace of God preceding us (prevenient grace)and remaining with us. <br /><br />God set up the conditions required to participate in his salvation plan. Saint Paul writes in Romans 4. "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace and the promise made sure to all the seed.... " He also says that "We have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand...."<br /><br />Salvation is from God's uncreated divine energies. Our co-working doesn't confer anything on us except what He gives us as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. When one thinks there is intrinsic worthiness in their own works and that they have earned salvation or that they deserve it they have become guilty of self righteousness and have fallen from grace. We receive salvation through union with Christ by which union we become partakers of the divine nature in order to regain the likeness of God which we lost in the fall. (2 Peter 1:3-11)We are in the image of God and are called to grow into the likeness through communion with Christ(theosis).This is the healing of the human person. This is personal salvation in the Church.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06557780849523482378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-43050706703625189242016-07-07T20:39:38.159-05:002016-07-07T20:39:38.159-05:00When speaking of salvation, there is the general o...When speaking of salvation, there is the general or objective economy and the personal subjective economy. In the objective economy it is a one sided work. Christ is rescuing us. He redeemed Human nature. He bridged the gap between God and Man.He destroyed death and hell through the cross.He descended into hell and loosed the captives. He expiated the sins of the whole world and reconciled mankind objectively to God. He removed all barriers to communion with God. Christ is risen from the dead trampling down death by death and upon those in the tomb, bestowing life. <br />In his ascension he enobled Human nature and deified it by his session at the Father's right hand And Re-opened the gates of paradise to all mankind. Christ saved all in his incarnation by assuming all of Human nature. This is the Good news. Christ gave his life a redempion For all.He saved us. This is the Gospel. In the objective economy you can say with Saint Paul "All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ and hath given us the ministry of reconciliation. To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself,not imputing their trespasses unto themmand hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation"2 Cor 5:18-19 <br /><br />In the subjective economy in which salvation is applied to us personally we have a part to play. God wants our participation.If God Just gave out Good wills everyone would get one as his antecedent will is for all to be saved.He also wills that we use our God given free will.He wants a real relationship with his creatures. Think about it.. If God controls both sides in the relationship meticulously, relationship is meaningless. Our good will, our faith and repentance is jointly enacted by a synergy between God and Man.God grace is absolutely necessary.we are never without the grace of God preceding and assisting.That is Just our response to the Good news... This is not even mentioning the work he is doing in our souls to conform us to the image of his son. Salvation is a gift through what he has objectively accomplished in securing our salvation and his abounding grace toward us in our life of conversion. His part is overwhelmingly more important than our part. Our conversion would be impossible without him. There would be no Gospel without him. <br /><br />Semi-palagianism is the false doctrine that we initiate our conversion without grace and grace comes later. Synergy is what the Fathers teach in the personal economy of salvation. The scriptures are clear on this as well. Augustinian want to make both economies to be grace alone essentially which is monergism. I will post some thoughts about the council of Orange and some other things in a little bit. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06557780849523482378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-23751060017950156572016-07-07T11:26:57.286-05:002016-07-07T11:26:57.286-05:00"You seem to be downplaying my emphasis on Di..."You seem to be downplaying my emphasis on Divine Grace in the working of what is Good."<br /><br />I'm not downplaying any emphasis you have on grace. I recognize the various ways you think God's grace helps us be righteous. But I've bee focusing on one way you <i>don't</i> think God's grace helps us--and that is by giving us the actual good will. In your view, it seems, God gives us the capacity to will good (and evil). He gives us encouragement, motivation, inspiration, etc., to choose good. He gives us further helps along the way once we've chosen good. Etc. But he doesn't actually give us a good will. According to you (so far as am understanding correctly), the good will itself comes from us and not from God. Suzie and Sarah had all the same gifts from God, but Sarah choose right while Suzie chose wrong. In your view, God did not give Sarah something he did not give to Suzie, but it is evident that Sarah ended up with something Suzie didn't end up with--a good will. Where did she get that? From herself, not from God. That's the idea I'm labeling Semipelagian. That's the view that was condemned by the Catholic Church at the Council of Orange.<br /><br />Now, again, I have hope that we can make a distinction between basic doctrine and deeper metaphysics in these matters. Perhaps you want to say that our good will is indeed a gift of God, and it's simply that I don't think your metaphysics can preserve that--just as I say that man is truly free when he accepts or rejects God, even though you don't think my metaphysics can preserve that. In this case, we may agree doctrinally on the central matters and differ mostly by one (or both) of us being confused in our thinking with regard to deeper metaphysics. I choose to give the benefit of the doubt in such matters whenever I can. (But, again, this does not mean it is necessarily useless to try to hash out the deeper metaphysics.)<br /><br />Perhaps we ought to read and talk through the paper on St. John Cassian when we get together. That might be productive.<br /><br />Thanks again!Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-181131601117911462016-07-06T11:26:21.569-05:002016-07-06T11:26:21.569-05:00You seem to be downplaying my emphasis on Divine G...You seem to be downplaying my emphasis on Divine Grace in the working of what is Good.God abundantly graces us in the working of what is good in a multitude of ways. To those who do not do good, it isn't because God didn't give them a grace to make a good beginning or they received a lesser grace . Rather it is that they received the grace of God in vain as St Paul speaks of in <br />his epistle to the corinthians. When one makes use of this initial grace, God gives more grace. So yes the Converted person at the end of their lives received immeasurable more grace than the unconverted person, but God would have given more graces to them as well had they been using what they had already received. Jesus parable of the Talents teaches this principle. If one really wants to understand the Orthodox view one must read St John Cassian's Conference 13 and St John of Damascus Book 2. The Orthodox view of man both before and after the fall is different than in Augustinianism. Here is an article that discusses this in the Context of St John Cassian's 13th Conference with lots of good comments. I gave you this link at the beginning of our dialogue but I think it will be more helpful now. https://benedictseraphim.wordpress.com/2005/03/31/st-john-cassian-on-grace-and-free-will/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06557780849523482378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-63503952439090220722016-07-06T10:38:59.961-05:002016-07-06T10:38:59.961-05:00Continuing to think about how to articulate the is...Continuing to think about how to articulate the issues here . . .<br /><br />In the viewpoint you seem to be advocating, what God does is give Sarah and Suzie the capacity of will to choose good or evil, but the goodness of Sarah's good choice comes entirely from Sarah. God doesn't give her the gift of a good will, but only the gift of a will. It is as if someone gives you pen and paper, but you have to write the poem. The pen and paper may have made the writing of the poem possible, but the poem came from you and not from the person who gave you the pen and the paper. You might very well have chosen to throw the pen and paper in the garbage rather than writing a poem. God's gift, then, is simply to make us full human beings capable of moral choices. If we use this to become good, this is not God's contribution but our own.<br /><br />This is exactly what the Council of Orange was attacking in the Semipelagian views. It is also what St. Augustine was talking about in one of my quotes from him in the article:<br /><br />"Men, however, are laboring to find in our own will some good thing of our own, -- not given to us by God; but how it is to be found I cannot imagine. The apostle says, when speaking of men's good works, "What hast thou that thou didst not receive? now, if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" . . . Unless, therefore, we obtain not simply determination of will, which is freely turned in this direction and that, and has its place amongst those natural goods which a bad man may use badly; but also a good will, which has its place among those goods of which it is impossible to make a bad use . . . I know not how to defend what is said: “What hast thou that thou didst not receive?” For if we have from God a certain free will, which may still be either good or bad; but the good will comes from ourselves; then that which comes from ourselves is better than that which comes from Him. But inasmuch as it is the height of absurdity to say this, they ought to acknowledge that we attain from God even a good will. . . . Since therefore the will is either good or bad, and since of course we have not the bad will from God, it remains that we have of God a good will; else, I am ignorant, since our justification is from it, in what other gift from Him we ought to rejoice."<br /><br />In the Catholic view, on the other hand, our good choices do indeed come from ourselves, but they are also gifts of God which come ultimately from him. Why did Sarah choose the right while Suzie did not? She surely did make a free choice, but there is more to say. Sarah's good choice was a gift of God, a gift that God did not give also to Suzie, as is evidenced by their different choices. God gave Suzie the option, opportunity, and capacity to choose good if that is what she wanted, but he did not give her the actuality of a good will. But, again, we get into some deep metaphysics here. Even if we talk past each other on some of these things, and we can't get our metaphysics lined up, hopefully we can both recognize that our righteousness is a gift of God, that God is sovereign, and that man is free.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.com