The Doctrines of Grace, Declared by the Church Fathers (Part 1)

[roaringwaterbay]

thanks for the axe grinding lesson. 

[WarrantedFaith]

@droptozro Yes I removed your comments and I already told you why: You will not be permitted to comment here if all you are going to do is lie that I have given no proof, rather than actually interact with the material I have repeatedly pointed you to. That is not responsible discussion. I told you I will deal with what you have to share, when you can first deal with what I have already shared. You have still yet to DEAL with anything; you have simply made assertions.

[droptozro]

@WarrantedFaith Okay, we can focus on one point at a time--but I posted the opposite--in context of the one above with reference--since I don't think Justin would contradict himself, but you deleted it.

"lie that I have given no proof, rather than actually interact with the material I have repeatedly pointed you to"

I haven't simply made assertions, I've spent much time searching for the original quote, and even of all places--the Calvinist CCEL website, don't you understand--it's not there?

[droptozro]

@droptozro

I don't understand how you can claim "I'm not dealing with it" when I've spent the last few days re-checking it again, and my documented books straight from their writings--and it cannot be located. The only way I could prove it to you is by reposting all of Justin's words in 500 word comment boxes--be logical please.

I've gone to your website too, I can deal with one point at a time T--of all your quotes--only one says a person was born a sinner, I don't disagree with the others

[WarrantedFaith]

@droptozro You accused me of giving no proof. That is what I am responding to. It is a lie. I have multiple times linked you to where you can find the references. I also asked you if you could quote for me what those references are, so that I know that you actually bothered to read at the link I sent to you. You did not do that. I can't know what you actually are and are not doing when you're just telling me things, not showing anything.

[WarrantedFaith]

@droptozro My apologies, I did make one mistake. A portion of the collected quotes of Martyr are actually from Theophilus and Tatian (the portion, "free will has destroyed us," and the bird analogy). But if you just look up the references you will find all of it. Don't run searches for it; there are different translations. You need to read it for yourself to find it. Like I said, I can find more specific locations when I get the time.

[WarrantedFaith]

@droptozro Sorry friend, but your *assertion* that "that quote is a fabrication" is NOT a responsible interaction with the material. You apparently haven't studied hard enough. I went back to the Gill resource myself last night, followed the references, and found everything in Martyr's writings. So you're going to need to INTERACT with the material, not just state you find it inconclusive. At least start by quoting me the references, so I can tell you've actually read Gill's treatment.

[WarrantedFaith]

I will try to find you more specific locations later on when I have the time (Gill uses page numbers of whatever translations he's reading).  I'm a bit pressed for time right now.

[droptozro]

The Justin Martyr quote in the beginning is a fake--you more than likely got it from the same Calvinist book that everyone else points me to---I cannot find that quote anywhere in his writings.

And this video is a mis-representation as a whole... just because a writer says something about election or predestination---doesn't mean they interpret it the way you do. Take a look at the 2 part video I have that is the Early church versus Calvinism.

[WarrantedFaith]

@droptozro I'll take a look at your video when you deal with the content in the description of mine.  I assume you are referring to the first Martyr quote. The second is from chapter 32 of his Dialogue with Trypho. The first is several small quotes from multiple works. Again, you can see it easily in the work I linked to in the description. Look at chapter 3, section 4.

[droptozro]

@WarrantedFaith

Yep, sorry... I did miss your "information" section, it's the same John Gill book that every Calvinist tries to put up against the Early Church. That quote is a fake, I haven't found it anywhere else... so either he lied, it's fabricated, or it's someone elses quote.

I'm not some Early church expert--but if you think Calvinism is backed up the Ante-Nicene church, you'd have to ignore quite a many quotes. Pick up the 10 volume set or "Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs"

[WarrantedFaith]

@droptozro If you read the book you'll find that he cites everything. Again, chapter 3, section 4. Like I said, it is actually several small quotes that have been put together here (hence the "..."s). That's why you're not going to find it if you just run a search for it. But none of it is fabricated. You can look up his citations in Gill's book and find the quotes in Martyr's writings.

[droptozro]

@WarrantedFaith

Okay... still, same book--same issue. I cannot even find a partial quote of Justin Martyr saying "we are born sinners." If you can find it, you show me where it's at in his writings.

Until then, I have clear documented quotes of the exact opposite--which are backed up by the 10 volume set. So since I'll hold he probably didn't contradict himself--the quote as a whole or partial remains fake.

I can guarantee you, you're fooling yourself tho--study it in more depth.

[WarrantedFaith]

@droptozro What "issue"? I've told you two times now ... look at chapter 3, section 4. Every phrase found in that Martyr quote is in that section, with a citation referencing you to where it is found in Martyr's writings.

[WarrantedFaith]

@droptozro As for him saying the opposite, I really have no interest in debating with you the beliefs of Justin Martyr. For the first several centuries the early church was not well united in doctrine (it took the church a couple of centuries just to affirm the Trinity). The early church fathers were not inspired by the Holy Spirit as the apostles were, and therefore are in no way the basis of my argument for Calvinism. (Continued...)

[WarrantedFaith]

@droptozro (...Continued) I simply find it fascinating that despite this, we do find a Calvinistic soteriology emphasized in many (not all) of the early church writings. And *hinting* at that is the only purpose of this video.

[droptozro]

@WarrantedFaith

No, this video hints incorrectly and really is a mis-representation... I'm sorry, every Calvinist makes the same claim of incoherence among the Ante-Nicene church--yet offers no proof of this. Much of the early church was oral in tradition, and among many nations the doctrines were quite uniform for the first 300 years.

I'm not debating either--this video is wrong. You offer a few generic quotes that I don't even disagree with, but they definitely don't outline (cont

[WarrantedFaith]

@droptozro I don't know what else to say to you friend. I have pointed you directly to where you can find detailed documentation and explanation of everything quoted in this video, and more. It is not my problem if you are not going to deal with the content responsibly. You will not be permitted to comment further here if all you are going to do is lie that no proof is being offered when every time I respond to you I point you right to the references.

[droptozro]

@WarrantedFaith ...) any specific doctrines of Calvin. Especially when I have a video and another 15-20 quotes from my books that aren't even in that 2 part video which strictly speak against doctrines of Calvin on P of TULIP alone---and ALSO align them with that of the Gnostics in their interpretation.

Do a fuller study of more fathers... this is a tip of the iceberg, the Ante-Nicene church will rock your theological world if you think they support any of Calvinist doctrines.

[lieberR1]

thank you

[AdDEXTERamPatris]

Wow...talk about taking sentences out of context.

[WarrantedFaith]

@AdDEXTERamPatris

Care to elaborate?

[WarrantedFaith]

@JesusforLife2

Yea now and then, when I'm in the mood for a good laugh :)

[KabaneTheChristian]

And a general comment: It would be best if one knows what a term means. Semi-Pelagianism has a specific meaning, one that flatly contradicts Orthodox dogma. Semipelagians identify the initiation of salvation as made by man. Orthodoxy identifies it as being made by God, in His universal distribution of divine grace through Jesus Christ.

[WarrantedFaith]

@KabaneTheChristian

I hope you can find my last 3 comments without any trouble. The 2nd and 3rd were replies to my own 1st. I hate the way YouTube 'organizes' comments.

[AgApE010]

@KabaneTheChristian

-

Actually you're saying the same thing,except from a different angle. Semi-Pelagians also believe that God gives a universal distribution of divine grace and that thus,in this sense, He is the initiation of salvation. Because this grace is universally given, they believe it is received or rejected by man's choosing by his own libertarian free will. In other words, man can say "No!" to his Creator when He calls him to salvation. So where do you disagree with the SPs thus far?

[CBALLEN]

This is one GREAT VIDEO! I just wish every person claiming the name of Christ, could see and understand it without their man made presuppositions,that were sown deceitfully by the Roman Catholic Church.

[KabaneTheChristian]

STOP HIJACKING THE FATHERS. Read them directly, and in context, and it becomes laughably obvious that they were not Calvinist in any sense. Augustine was Thomistic in his sotieriology, not Calvinistic.

[WarrantedFaith]

@KabaneTheChristian Kabane, please take a look at the book in the video description. 200 pages of it are dedicated to considering the context of these quotes, and others.

[davidpwithun]

@WarrantedFaith Have you ever actually read the Patristic documents in full for yourself or just a bunch of selected quotes from them?

[WarrantedFaith]

@davidpwithun Some of them yes. Others, I have studied at least the contexts of the portions these quotes are derived from.

As I've told others, see the video description. I have linked in there an online book that spends time in these documents demonstrating that the quotes have been used properly here.

[davidpwithun]

@WarrantedFaith Well, the thing is -- I can tell you that they haven't, having read the writings of nearly all (all before AD 500) of the individuals quoted. They are being quoted out of context and being used to represent beliefs they simply didn't hold to. The sole exception may be Augustine, who was the originator (or at least most popular advocate) of some doctrines that would later become Calvinism. But the rest... very widely taken out of context.

[WarrantedFaith]

@davidpwithun And I can tell you YOU'RE wrong. See? We're even :) You'll have to do better than that. Like I said, read the book I linked to. And if you still disagree, there are links in the description to my forums where I would be happy to hear you defend your claim.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@WarrantedFaith

No, how about you read the fathers themselves, okay? Stop relying so heavily on secondary sources. Anyone who engages in biblical exegesis should be reading the primary source (the Bible) along with the secondary sources that exegete it. Likewise, if you want to engage in patristic exegesis, you better have read the fathers themselves and not just protestant commentary on certain quotations by them.

[WarrantedFaith]

@KabaneTheChristian

If you're this careless when it comes to reading YouTube comments I'd say the credibility of your assertions has already been significantly hindered my friend. I just explained to your bud that I have read the church fathers. The book in the description is provided so that viewers can gain quick access to the references and do some further studying themselves. Why not make use of it and come share your findings on my forums instead of trying to instigate something here?

[KabaneTheChristian]

@WarrantedFaith

I hadn't clicked view all. That comment did not appear on my screen. I apologize. Which fathers have you read? If you've read the contexts of all these quotations, can you please provided the references for the quotations that you cited?

[KabaneTheChristian]

@KabaneTheChristian

*please provide

[CBALLEN]

@KabaneTheChristian Repent and believe in the true gospel of our GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST or Perish.Stop peddling your evolutionary tripe and put your faith in the only truth there is.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@CBALLEN

ROFL

[CBALLEN]

@KabaneTheChristian Where the worm dieth not.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@CBALLEN

You are frightening me.

[WarrantedFaith]

@KabaneTheChristian

I'm only going to say this one more time my friend. You can find the references if you look in the book I linked to in the description. That is why I put it there. The fact that I link to another book for the list of references does not mean I have not studied the primary sources myself friend :).

[CBALLEN]

@WarrantedFaith Kabane pretends to be a Christian,yet laughs when God is credited for creation.He believes everything came from bacteria,so showing him a video like this will only anger him and bring out the rebellion that he's never lost.He deny's our Lord's words about almost everything and puts his faith in the evolutionists,so God's sovereignty must vigorously be denied by this pretender.

[WarrantedFaith]

@CBALLEN Is he a Roman Catholic?

[CBALLEN]

@WarrantedFaith He's Eastern Orthodox, I believe.

[WarrantedFaith]

@CBALLEN Same central problem :)

[CBALLEN]

@WarrantedFaith Oh Yeah,Amen,They all want to fight for the right of man to give the finger to God and get by with it.It appears to be man's innate bend towards rebellion,that makes him hold on to their Arminianism.And what is Arminianism?Nothing but ROMAN PAGANISM.The different rituals are all that separates all Arminian groups,but they are all the same.A man can only choose a false god with his free will,nothing more,nothing less.God Bless

[KabaneTheChristian]

@CBALLEN

You know, you should probably learn the difference between Arminianism and Orthodoxy.

[CBALLEN]

@KabaneTheChristian" You know, you should probably learn the difference between Arminianism and Orthodoxy."

Semi Pelagian is A more correct term,but they all teach that a spiritually dead man can seek and find the Lord when scripture completely refutes it.NO ONE SEEKS GOD in their natural God hating state,if God does not make one born again first,they could never be saved.Of course God is the one Who chooses who gets BORN AGAIN,and that's where rebellious man's problem lies.

[WarrantedFaith]

@KabaneTheChristian

Arminianism, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, they are all simply different flavors of the same central problem ... a failure to recognize the sufficiency of God's own work in salvation.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@WarrantedFaith

That depends on what you consider "sufficiency". Orthodox Christians affirm that salvation is a work done totally by the grace of God. Our role is simply cooperation, which is affirmed in Scripture (see deSilva on client-patron models in the New Testament). Sure, Calvinism is unique in absolute monergism. Orthodoxy is unique in emphasizing Palamism. You can find a unique doctrine in each religion.

[WarrantedFaith]

@KabaneTheChristian

I'm quite well aware of what Semi-Pelagianism means. I am quite well aware of the differences between it and other synergistic points of view. But that is irrelevant to the point of my comment, which was to simply point out the fact that all of these positions maintain the same central problem.

Your role of cooperation still denies that grace is sufficient to save if you suggest that the role is a precondition, and not the result, of God's saving work.

[WarrantedFaith]

@WarrantedFaith

Example. It is popular to believe that God has treated all men equally by His grace. Well if that is so then His grace is not sufficient to save; it is necessary, but not sufficient, because something must still be added to it. Otherwise, everyone would be saved. If God has treated everyone equally, then the difference between the believer and non rests in something that man does.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@WarrantedFaith

Santa offers a gift to two children. One child spits at Santa, while the other takes the gift. Who gets credit for the gift? Santa or the child who took it?

[WarrantedFaith]

@WarrantedFaith

And it is irrelevant what that something is, because even if it is a mere free-will choice, that choice still must come from an individual virtue in the believer (whether it be intelligence, humility, open-mindedness, etc.) that the unbeliever lacks. And the origin of that virtue cannot be accredited to God so long as one continues to argue that God has treated both men equally.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@WarrantedFaith

The virtue being a response to God's grace and the lack of virtue being a rejection of it. I don't really know what you're getting at here.

[WarrantedFaith]

@KabaneTheChristian

What I'm getting at is that there is no way anyone can consistently say that the choice to accept Christ is the result of God's grace, and not the result of something in themselves that makes them a better person, unless it be admitted that God chooses, in monergism, to extend mercy onto some at the expense of others. If God treats both men equally, then the cause of their difference is themselves, not God's grace, thus denying the sufficiency of that grace.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@WarrantedFaith

Again, return to the gift analogy. If mom puts a gift under the Christmas tree, do you take the credit for the gift because you unwrapped it? Your idea of sufficiency is so broad and all inclusive that it would never be used that way in other contexts. Two hundred dollars is sufficient for mom's present. No it isn't, because she still has to reach for it and unwrap it. See how absurd that idea of sufficiency is?

[WarrantedFaith]

@KabaneTheChristian

What's absurd about it? It sounds to me like you just want to use the word "sufficiency" without acknowledging what it really means. Your analogy is really missing the point. You're talking about the sufficiency of purchasing the gift, not the sufficiency of the child receiving the gift. (Continued...)

[WarrantedFaith]

@KabaneTheChristian

(...Continued) For in order for the mother's actions alone to be sufficient for the child to receive the gift, it must also be the case that the child's choosing is necessarily conditioned upon what the mother does, and not upon anything in himself. If the child can still resist the gift, then mom's provision of it is only NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT to the child's reception of it. And that is the issue - the child's reception of it, not merely the provision of it.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@WarrantedFaith

Well that's what I'm talking about. In common language, especially when referring to gifts, which is what salvation is, sufficiency is used to refer to provision, not reception. So when I use the word "sufficient", I mean in provision. When you use it, you include "reception." Reception of a gift does not take away any of the credit from the gift-giver as long as we are not providing for any of the gift.

[WarrantedFaith]

@KabaneTheChristian

But I think your analogy is distracting you from the real issue here. The effort of the one receiving the gift is the whole point we need to be concerned with. When we are talking about the salvation of a person, we are talking not only about God's provision of the gift, but also the man's reception of it. This is necessary, given the sinful condition of man. Nearly everyone would agree that the grace of God is at least necessary in order for a man to choose Him above sin.

[WarrantedFaith]

@KabaneTheChristian

But we also have to ask if that grace takes us all the way toward that decision, or if it simply makes the decision a POSSIBILITY. If it only makes the decision a possibility, then this implies that something of man's own efforts is required in addition to that grace. In other words, God has provided the OPPORTUNITY, but the DETERMINING FACTOR still rests in whether man MAKES PROPER USE OF the provision.

[WarrantedFaith]

@KabaneTheChristian

This has been the central question of disagreement throughout the major disputes of history...Augustine & Pelagius, Protestant Reformation & Roman Catholicism, Calvinism/Arminianism. So I think it is a big stretch for you to suggest that I am using the term sufficiency "too broadly." This question of sufficiency, or just necessity, is the basic distinction between monergism and synergism, and has always been.

[CBALLEN]

@KabaneTheChristian When God has elected one to come,they come.He holds the hearts of kings in His hand and turns them in the way they will go.He had His servant compel those to come to the feast and they came,but those He only invited but didn't, were barred from the event and the one who slipped in,was bound hand and foot and cast into utter darkness.If a man thinks He came of his own free will out of ignorance,that's one thing,but to disbelieve are being shown the facts is quite another.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@WarrantedFaith

I am glad you recognize that. I was reacting to Cballen's pejorative accusation of Semi-pelagianism.

Not really. It's never had that result on me nor true Orthodox Christians. From personal experience, Orthodoxy has led me to much deeper repentance and hatred for sin than Calvinism ever did. Not to mention that as a creation of God, responding positively to His grace still glorifies Him, because we bear His divine image.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@WarrantedFaith

I am actually a former Calvinist, i.e. I subscribed to absolute monergism. It was biblical and historical data which led me to abandon that religion.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@CBALLEN

AHAHAHAHAHAH I love angry Calvinists.

[CBALLEN]

@KabaneTheChristian Don't worry about me,I'm nobody,the only one you need to worry about is the one you are constantly calling a liar,the one you laugh at when Creation and ADAM and Eve being created as the first humans,are mentioned.You believe the godless when they tell you that everything living evolved from bacteria.You seem to be quite happy blaspheming God and His word.

[CBALLEN]

You need to change your user name to Kabane the Heretic ,Christian is very misleading,Christian infers that you believe God and His word,and in your case nothing could be further from the truth.The god you claim to worship bows to man and his will,your god is a failure who'd like to save everyone,but just doesn't have the power,your god used death to bring man into the world,where as,the God of scripture made man and women,fully formed and functioning and their sin brought death to all things.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@CBALLEN

Calm down lad, calm down. Everything's going to be okay.

[CBALLEN]

@KabaneTheChristian LOL,Are you sure?Repent and believe.

[CBALLEN]

@KabaneTheChristian Stop trusting in your christian cannibalization to get enough Jesus in you for salvation,it won't work.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@CBALLEN

It appears that you have never seriously examined Orthodox dogma. With that said, I am going to leave you alone. I'll probably talk some more with WarrantedFaith, because he seems to be able to dialogue without attempting to cause a shouting match. Forgive, Seraphim.

[KabaneTheChristian]

@WarrantedFaith

David has read the fathers. I am working through the fathers myself. On my bookshelf is the 37 volume set of church fathers. I have a copy of the Apostolic Fathers plus Irenaeus and Justin Martyr sitting next to me open at this very moment. Why don't you give us the references for these quotations so I may look them up in context?

[WarrantedFaith]

@KabaneTheChristian Good for you :)

[KabaneTheChristian]

@WarrantedFaith

Thanks...now can you give us the references to these quotations?

[robinsam100]

Thanks for sharing this!!

[WarrantedFaith]

@robinsam100 And thank you for your comment :)

Pass the video along! I don't get many views yet from the non-Reformed

[AgApE010]

"And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

-Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 32 (written ca. 95A.D.)

-

Very interesting how one of the first "Popes" (allegedly) taught Sola Fide. ;)

[AgApE010]

Hey, that book that you have listed in the description box, does it have all these quotations and give the references?

[WarrantedFaith]

@AgApE010 Possibly. It has been a while since I have looked at it; I had these quotations in my notes. I do remember finding many of them after reading through that book though, so yes at least many of them will be documented in there. Gill also considers some other fathers that I don't quote here as well.

Seeing as it's an old book you can probably read most of it free online at Google Books.

[WarrantedFaith]

@WarrantedFaith I mean that is his thesis in part 4 of his book -- to prove that the Five Points of Calvinism were believed by some even in the earliest days of the church.

[AgApE010]

@WarrantedFaith

-

Thanks for the info brother. I've been studying the individual writings of the Fathers for quite some time now and there is a pleasantly surprising large number of them (like 95% of them) that contradict Romanism by teaching Sola Fide, Unconditional Election, Limited Substitutionary Atonement, symbolic view of the Eucharist, Eternal Security, etc. This is a great video bro! Thanks for the upload.

[WarrantedFaith]

@AgApE010 You are very welcome :). By the way I found the book online, and I've updated the description with a link to it if you're interested. The section on the church fathers is just over 3/4ths of the way down the page.

[InTheSpirit12]

Amen! 

[ACruceSalus1]

Thanks for sharing this, brother.

God bless you.

[theheat151]

Awesome! This is Scott Morgan, right?

Shalom!

[WarrantedFaith]

@theheat151 Yes it is :). Who is this?

[theheat151]

@WarrantedFaith This is Herson Cruz from FB.

[zkueker88]

@theheat151

oh hey, Herson :-)

[theheat151]

@zkueker88 Zup, Zach! You still not convince on Hollywood's idea that we are in control? ...lol

[BennyMetal7]

AWESOME!

[zkueker88]

well done, brother