Early this year I published three Church Fathers and their belief in man's freewill. I looked at Saint Justin Martyr, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, and Saint Jerome. All three of these Early Church Fathers uphold the teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches which teach that man was created by God with freewill, despite God's foreknowledge of each person and how each will choose. The beauty of the orthodox teaching is that we accept God's obvious foreknowledge of how every person will choose, yet also accepting the gift that God gives man to freely choose his own end in temporal time. This mystery was also accepted by the early Church Fathers, yet 'Reformed' Protestants refuse to accept this gift from God, rejecting freewill as part of God's creation. I wanted to put all three of these articles together for easy reference. The next time a Calvinist tells you that God has not given man the ability to act freely you can tell them that these three Saints clearly disagree with them.
Justin Martyr weighs in on man's freewill.
Today we often see "Reformed" apologists interpreting Romans as well as other books of Sacred Scripture incorrectly. They try to prove a false doctrine which makes God creating some men for hell and others for heaven, with no reference to their freewill co-operation with God. They claim that the Catholic Church is incorrect in teaching that men have freewill and wrongly cite them as being semi-pelagians. I wanted to post a part of Justin Martyr's writing to Trypho sometime near the year 150AD. I suppose this probably is not going to be an early enough source for some people, but hey, it is almost within 100 years of Jesus' death. I would like the "Reformers" to provide a reference outside of Scripture proving their interpretation earlier than this that contradicts it. Justin clearly taught the Catholic position on man's freewill. He clearly understands Romans like the Catholic Church does, and makes the proper reference to David, which the "Reformers" constantly reject. Well, we have a source from the mid 100s that contradicts their interpretation, in favor of the Catholic.
Chapter 141. Free-will in men and angels
Justin: But that you may not have a pretext for saying that Christ must have been crucified, and that those who transgressed must have been among your nation, and that the matter could not have been otherwise, I said briefly by anticipation, that God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless we repent beforehand. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so. So that if they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God: and the Scripture foretells that they shall be blessed, saying, 'Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes not sin;' that is, having repented of his sins, that he may receive remission of them from God; and not as you deceive yourselves, and some others who resemble you in this, who say, that even though they be sinners, but know God, the Lord will not impute sin to them. We have as proof of this the one fall of David, which happened through his boasting, which was forgiven then when he so mourned and wept, as it is written. But if even to such a man no remission was granted before repentance, and only when this great king, and anointed one, and prophet, mourned and conducted himself so, how can the impure and utterly abandoned, if they weep not, and mourn not, and repent not, entertain the hope that the Lord will not impute to them sin?
It seems that Justin is not interpreting the Scriptures like modern "Reformed" apologists are doing. Justin was martyred in Rome around 162AD. He is also considered to the founder of Christian Philosophy. I will do another article on Justin where he clearly writes that the Eucharist is indeed the same flesh that was made incarnate. Stay tuned for another hard hitting issue of the Catholic Champion blog!
Irenaeus of Lyons Weighs in on Man's Freewill
Here is a second part of my ongoing series on man's freewill, which is rejected by the Protestant “Reformed” Church. Here is another early source which once again completely agrees with Catholic teaching on freewill. Saint Irenaeus is our second early witness, along with Justin Martyr from very early in the Church who agree with Catholic doctrine on man's freewill. If we read we can see that Irenaeus is not interpreting Saint Paul like John Calvin did or any of the modern “Reformed” apologists. He wrote this around 180AD. Again, I suppose this isn't early enough for the “Reformed” apologists. I guess Christianity was already corrupted by then right? I guess both Justin Martyr in 150 and now Irenaeus in 180 are both interpreting Saint Paul incorrectly right? Just like the Catholic and Orthodox Church's? If you are going to buy that then I have some other goods to sell you too. As I asked in my first post. I want to see an earlier interpretation of Saint Paul that supports the “Reformed” position.
These excerpts are from Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 37)
1. This expression [of our Lord], "How often would I have gathered your children together, and you would not," Matthew 23:37 set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, "But do you despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But according to your hardness and impenitent heart, you store to yourself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God." "But glory and honour," he says, "to every one that does good." God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.
2. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it—some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets.
4. No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man's power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says, "All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient;" 1 Corinthians 6:12 referring both to the liberty of man, in which respect "all things are lawful," God exercising no compulsion in regard to him; and [by the expression] "not expedient" pointing out that we "should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness," 1 Peter 2:16 for this is not expedient. And again he says, "Speak every man truth with his neighbour." Ephesians 4:25 And, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor scurrility, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks." Ephesians 4:29 And, "For you were sometimes darkness, but now are you light in the Lord; walk honestly as children of the light, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in anger and jealousy. And such were some of you; but you have been washed, but you have been sanctified in the name of our Lord." 1 Corinthians 6:11 If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.
Saint Jerome weighs in on man's freewill.
This is the 3rd of an ongoing series refuting the false doctrine of predestination that Calvinists teach in place of the truth. This Doctor of the Church wrote a letter on this very subject. It is letter 133 to Ctesiphon. I wanted to post a few excerpts from it and bold type the text that emphasizes important points on freewill. Saint Jerome wrote this in the year 415. We can see that he is passing along the faith that those that came before him did. His assessment is exactly that of Justin Martyr and Saint Irenaeus. It is well worth reading the entire letter. Saint Jerome teaches, just like the Catholic Church does, that grace is first required, but that man has freewill and he must co-operate with God's grace as well. Saint Jerome is obviously arguing in this letter against those who believe, like Pelagius that human freewill is all that is needed. The great Saint readily admits that man has freewill, but salvation first is offered by God's grace, which without it man would be helpless. This is true Catholic teaching. Without God's help we cannot do good, nor co-operate with Him. Saint Jerome makes this very clear in this letter. I guess he was a Semi-Pelagian too?
Here is the link to the entire letter.
5. The better to deceive men they have added to the maxim given above the saving clause "but not without the grace of God;" and this may at the first blush take in some readers. However, when it is carefully sifted and considered, it can deceive nobody. For while they acknowledge the grace of God, they tell us that our acts do not depend upon His help. Rather, they understand by the grace of God free will and the commandments of the Law. They quote Isaiah's words: "God has given the law to aid men," and say that we ought to thank Him for having created us such that of our own free will we can choose the good and avoid the evil. Nor do they see that in alleging this the devil uses their lips to hiss out an intolerable blasphemy. For if God's grace is limited to this that He has formed us with wills of our own, and if we are to rest content with free will, not seeking the divine aid lest this should be impaired, we should cease to pray; for we cannot entreat God's mercy to give us daily what is already in our hands having been given to us once for all. Those who think thus make prayer impossible and boast that free will makes them not merely controllers of themselves but as powerful as God. For they need no external help. Away with fasting, away with every form of self-restraint! For why need I strive to win by toil what has once for all been placed within my reach? The argument that I am using is not mine; it is that put forward by a disciple of Pelagius, or rather one who is the teacher and commander of his whole army. This man, who is the opposite of Paul for he is a vessel of perdition, roams through thickets— not, as his partisans say, of syllogisms, but of solecisms, and theorizes thus: "If I do nothing without the help of God and if all that I do is His act, I cease to labour and the crown that I shall win will belong not to me but to the grace of God. It is idle for Him to have given me the power of choice if I cannot use it without His constant help. For will that requires external support ceases to be will. God has given me freedom of choice, but what becomes of this if I cannot do as I wish?" Accordingly he propounds the following dilemma: "Either once for all I use the power which is given to me, and so preserve the freedom of my will; or I need the help of another, in which case the freedom of my will is wholly abrogated."
6. Surely the man who says this is no ordinary blasphemer; the poison of his heresy is no common poison. Since our wills are free, they argue, we are no longer dependent upon God; and they forget the Apostle's words "what have you that thou did not receive? Now if you received it why do you glory as if you had not received it?" 1 Corinthians 4:7 A nice return, truly, does a man make to God when to assert the freedom of his will he rebels against Him! For our parts we gladly embrace this freedom, but we never forget to thank the Giver; knowing that we are powerless unless He continually preserves in us His own gift......
10. It is in vain that you misrepresent me and try to convince the ignorant that I condemn free will. Let him who condemns it be himself condemned. We have been created endowed with free will; still it is not this which distinguishes us from the brutes. For human free will, as I have said before, depends upon the help of God and needs His aid moment by moment, a thing which you and yours do not choose to admit. Your position is that, if a man once has free will, he no longer needs the help of God. It is true that freedom of the will brings with it freedom of decision. Still man does not act immediately on his free will, but requires God's aid who Himself needs no aid........
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment