St Symeon the New Theologian Against the Predestinarians
Matthew Johnson
OK, the title is a little provocative. And there really is a genuine
difference between St. Symeon's opponents and the Predestinarians of
Luther's time through our own. Still, I expect many will read the
following extracts from this sermon of his and agree that his
opponents had a _lot_ in common with Predestinarians. So I ask the
reader to read these extracts and think about how much they have in
common, and how appropriate St. Symeon's words are to refute the
modern error.
In particular, it is very conspicuous, reading this extract, how his
interpretation of Scripture is VERY heavily influenced (I would even
say enlightened) by his understanding of the importance of spiritual
battle against the passions.
My own notes are bracketed with '[T' and ']'. When there is no exact
equivalent for the Greek word, I have included it in square-brackets,
following the usual transcription for this NG, which is very similar
to B-GREEK.
The Translation Itself:
I have heard many men say, "since he [T Paul] says 'those whom God
foreknew, these also He predestined; and those He predestined He also
called; and those he called, thse He glorified', what use is it for me
to put forth much labor, to show returning and repentance, if I am not
foreknown and predestined by God to salvation and becoming the image
of the glory of His son?". To such as these it is fitting and
appropriate to answer, "Oh, you, why do you gather from Scripture not
to your salvation, but to your destruction? And why do you plunder the
hard to understand passages and take them to your own destruction? Do
you not hear how every day the Savior cries out, "As I live, I do not
will the death of the sinner as I do his repentance and life (cf. Eze
18:23)"? Do you not hear Him saying, "Repent, for the Kingdom of
Heaven is nigh"? And again, "Amen I say to you: there shall be joy in
Heaven at one sinner repenting"? Did He say to some, "Do not repent,
for I will not accept you" and to others as predestined, "But do ye
repent, for I have foreknown you". By no means! Instead, the Church
cries out every day in all the world, "Come to Me all ye who are
labored and burdened, and I will give you rest". "Come", He says, "ye
who are weighed down in many sins, come to Him who takes away the sin
of the world; come, ye who thirst, to the eternal and immortal font".
Does He distance and set apart one person foreknown to be good,
sending away the other who is not? By no means. For this reason, "do
not make excuses in sins", neither will to take to your own
destruction principles from Scripture. Instead, let everyone run to
the Master who is calling us. Even if he is a publican, even if he is
a profligate, even if he is an adulterer, even if he is a murderer,
even if any other such sinner approaches Him, the Master will not turn
him away. Rather, He takes away the burden of his sins, and shows him
to be immediately free. And how does He take away the burden? The same
way He raised the paralytic, saying to him, "Child, yoru sins are
forgiven thee", and immediately the weight was lightened, and his body
was made rich with healing. So let anyone who wishes approach Him and
let one cry "Son of David, have mercy on me", and when he hears, "What
do you wish me to do for you?", let him answer immediately, "Lord,
that I might regain my sight", and he will immediately hear, "I will
it, see". And let another say, "Lord, my daughter [my soul] is sorely
beset by a demon", and he will hear, "I will go and heal her". And if
someone is lazy and does not wish to come to the Healer, even when He
comes to him and says, "Follow Me", let him follow as the publican
once followed Him, leaving behind his tax-collectors booth and greed;
as you well know, He made an Apostle of him. Even if he is a
paralytic, lying for many years in his love of money and carelessness
and laziness, even him the Master calls, wanting to make a disciple of
Him, saying, "Do you wish to be healed?", let him say, immediately
with joy, "Yes, Lord, but I hav eno man to lower me into the water" of
repentance. And when he hears, "take up your pallet and walk and
follow me", let him rise at once to his feet, and run up after Him who
calls him.
But if each does not wish to love Him like the sinful woman, or like
the prodigal, to return in warm repentance to Him, or even like the
woman with an issue of blood, to touch Him, why must he make excuses,
in his sins saying, "those whom He foreknew, all of these He called"?
One could just as well have said that God, being pre-eternal, and
knowing all things before they happen, foreknew even you, that you
would not hear His call, that you would not believe His words and
promises; but then, even knowing this, "He came down inclining the
heavens" and became Man, for _your_ sake came and took up dwelling
here. And looking after you in many ways ever day, at times through
His servants, calls you to rise up from your fallen condition you are
lying in and follow Him ascending to the kingdom of Heaven, entering
into union with Him there. What/which is the cause, tell me, of your
destruction and your disobedience? Is it you, who disbelieved, and did
not want to follow your Master, or God Himself, who formed you, who
knew ahead that you would not obey Him, but instead would remain in
the hardness of your impenitent heart? I think that you will at all
costs say "it is not Him, but I myself [T who is the cause]" For it is
not the foreknowledge_ of God that is the cause of our hardness, but
our own faithlessness.
For He foreknows all things, those that have already happened, those
that are in progress, and those that are not yet completed; For by Him
and in Him are all things subsisting. And just as in the theater today
those running and those boxing are seen by the king, but the king does
not determine who wins and loses, but it is their own perfection in
struggle or slackness that is the cause of victory or humiliation, so
it also seems to me with God. Respecting our autonomy [AUTEJOUSION],
teaching us commandments to prepare us for the contests and the
opponents set against us, He lets each one of us on our own free-will
[AUTOPROAIRETWS] either stand firm and triumph, or slacken and be
defeated by our opponent. But He does not leave us alone, (for He
knows the weakness of human nature) but He Himself is present at our
side, and though we fight of our own free will, He fights alongside
us, and mystically gives us power, and so Himself rather than we work
our victory over the enemy. This an earthly king cannot do; for he too
is a weak man, dependent on his servants just as we are.
[T to be continued]
from
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/greek/Symeon_vivlos_ithikon/Symeon_vivlos_ithikon_Logos_B.html
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
Matthew Johnson
says...
Old-timers in this NG will know that when I reply to one of my own posts, it is
usually to make a correction. But those who look forward to reading corrections
will be disappointed this time;) Now I am doing it because I am continuing the
translation started in the previous post.
[snip]
>For He foreknows all things, those that have already happened, those
>that are in progress, and those that are not yet completed; For by Him
>and in Him are all things subsisting. And just as in the theater today
>those running and those boxing are seen by the king, but the king does
>not determine who wins and loses, but it is their own perfection in
>struggle or slackness that is the cause of victory or humiliation, so
>it also seems to me with God. Respecting our autonomy [AUTEJOUSION],
>teaching us commandments to prepare us for the contests and the
>opponents set against us, He lets each one of us on our own free-will
>[AUTOPROAIRETWS] either stand firm and triumph, or slacken and be
>defeated by our opponent. But He does not leave us alone, (for He
>knows the weakness of human nature) but He Himself is present at our
>side, and though we fight of our own free will, He fights alongside
>us, and mystically gives us power, and so Himself rather than we work
>our victory over the enemy. This an earthly king cannot do; for he too
>is a weak man, dependent on his servants just as we are.
>
>[T to be continued]
>
>from
>http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/greek/Symeon_vivlos_ithikon/Symeon_vivlos_ithikon_Logos_B.html
And just as promised, here is the continuation:
But though God, mighty and undefeatable, fights alongside those who
willingly and autonomously [AUTOPROAIRETWWS] take up the battle
against the enemy, and makes them victors over the evil devil, He does
not compel those unwilling to battle, so that He not take away their
free-will [TO AUTEJOUSIOS], which is according to the image of God in
our rational nature; for taking it away would reduce us to the order of
irrational things. Thus God looks upon us as in a theater, just as an
earthly king views those striving in the arena, as explained
above. But the earthly king does not have foreknowledge of who will
win and who will lose, until he sees the outcome and gives the victors
crowns. But to whom he will give the crowns he does not know ahead of
time. But the heavenly king knows both precisely from before all ages.
This is why He told those who asked to sit on His right and left, "It
is not mine to give you, but it will be given to those for whom it is
prepared"
But aha! This is exactly what Paul knowing this said so fittingly,
"those whom He foreknew, He also predestined; those whom He
predestined, all of these He called; those He called, these He also
justified". Then it is not the foreknowledge on God's part of who will
triumph out of free-will, who will have the eagerness that is the
cause of victory, and again, it is not the foreknowledge of who will
fall that is the cause of the fall, but the eagerness, inclination
[PROQESIS] and courage themselves that are the helper to victory; but
faithlessness, negligence, and slackness are the cause of our
humiliation and destruction. Let us not say, while reclining on our
well-decorated couches of love of pleasure, "those whom He foreknew,
He also predestined", nor let us say such things that we do not
understand. Yes, He truly foreknew you to be careless, faithless,
and negligent [RAiQUMON], but He did not ordain you or destine you to
lack the power to repent or get up [DIASTHNAI] if you are willing. But
you, by sayint this thing, clearly call God a liar. For when He says,
"I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance",
you, being negligent and not wishing to return [METASTRECAI] and
repent [METAMELHUHNAI] from your wickedness, you contradict as if not
only accusing God [O AYEUDHS] of lying to you, but also making excuses
for yourself. "Those who are going to repent", he says [T this switch
from 2nd to 3rd person is confusing to the modern reader, but that is
what he did; nor is it unheard of in ancient writers], "are
predestined, but I am not one of them. For this very reason, let them
repent, who are clearly foreknown, who are predestined". Oh, the
senselessness of it all! Oh, the the soul fallen even lower into
baseness and incomprehension than the demons! When has anyone ever
heard such a thing said even among the demons? When have you ever
heard a demon blame his own perdition on God? Let us not then blame
the demons; for behold how the soul of man cooks up blasphemies worse
than theirs.
Whence did you learn, tell me, that you are not one of the predestined
and foreordained to become like unto the image of the glory of God?
Tell me, who announced this to you? Surely it was not God nor His
prophets nor His angels? "No,", he [T must] say, "but I am supposing
all my labor will be for naught, because I am not foreknown". But why
do you not hold firmly in your heart instead that God sent His only
begotten Son into the world just to save you, foreknowing you to
become His brother and co-heir? And then why do you not be eager to
love Him with all your heart and keep His saving commandments? And why
do you not believe that He will not abandon you, having been slain for
you, nor will He allow you to be lost? Or have you not heard Him
saying, "even if a woman forgets the fruit of her womb, I will not
forget Thee"? But if you jump the gun [T a good modern equivalent for
his expression] and judge yourself to be unworthy and willingly cut
yourself off from the flock of Christ's sheep, see that no one other
than yourself is the helper responsible for your destruction.
For this very reason, rip away from your soul every faithlessness,
bastardly behavior and doubting and let us go wholeheartedly with
unshaken faith and living desire, as newly bought slaves
bought at the price of precious blood; and being ashamed of what high
price we were bought at, let us love the Master who paid so much for
us, accepting His love for us, knwoing that if He did not wish to save
us whom He redeemed, He would not have come down to earth, He would
not have been slain for us, doing this willing the salvation of
all. And hear Him saying also: "I have not come to condemn the world,
but to save it".
This is the end of section 1. Section 2 is also great, but it will have to
wait;)
And yes, I have thought of providing verse references, but 1) they are not in
the Greek original and 2) it is not even clear that they all correspond exactly
to a recognized translation anyway. Sometimes, I think he is quoting from
memory.
lsen...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Preface to the Translation
>
> OK, the title is a little provocative. And there really is a genuine
> difference between St. Symeon's opponents and the Predestinarians
How can ANYONE be a Biblical Christian and not be a "Predestinarian?"
Just logically, God, capital "G" is immutable and sovereign. To be
the
Immutable, Sovereign Creator means that everything is governed by God.
Everything is bounded and utilized in His providential government. He
is the LORD of Lords and it is only the Divine ordering of all things
to
but one Goal which provides the real plot of the story. Teleological
creation lies latent in the orderly sequence of its parts. God,
capital "G"
stands outside of the cosmos and therefore outside of time. There is
nothing that stands outside of His providence nor can it be otherwise.
Biblically, the case is beyond argument. In the Jewish scriptures the
whole of them rest on the presupposition of an all pervasive and
perfect
plan. Rain does not fall apart from His will and providence. Divine
Lord-
ship is a cardinal doctrine of the Jewish mindset. All trials and all
persecutions are viewed in relationship to God's sovereign rule over
His
creation and His elect.
Cicero's "For gold, land and all the blessings of life we return
thanks to
God; but no one ever returned thanks to God for virtue" is mined from
the tree of good and evil where man became his own reference point.
It
is Pelagianism at its root -humanistic autocracy.
In the NT, the doctrine of predestination become even more defined and
dogmatic, such that a real distinction emerges between the merely
"called"
and the truly "chosen." (Mt 22:14) The only author of "choice" is
God
(Mk 13:20) who in eternity past foreordained the elect "before the
foundation
of the world (Eph 1:4). God alone has decreed who would be elected
into the remnant (Lk 18:7; Mt 24:22, 24, 31; Mk 18:20-22.)
John 6:44 "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws
him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
It is only in accordance with His good pleasure that anyone is truly
chosen. This is only the effect of the call as the elect are already
predetermined (Mt 13) and all providence is ordered for the benefit
of the elect and at the last day, it is they who are separated out of
the non-elect to gain their inheritance which has been prepared for
them from all eternity (Mt 25:34).
And we haven't even begun unless we look at the Pauline gospel.
Who can deny his teaching on election being all and only "from
Him, through Him and to Him."
To argue against predestination and election is to stand opposed to
the Scriptures, the teachings of Christ and His apostles. It is to
stand opposed to Augustine. It is stand opposed to logic.
Matthew Johnson
lsen...@hotmail.com says...
>On Jan 11, 10:51=A0pm, Matthew Johnson <matthew_mem...@newsguy.org>
>wrote:
>> Preface to the Translation
>> OK, the title is a little provocative. And there really is a genuine
>> difference between St. Symeon's opponents and the Predestinarians
>How can ANYONE be a Biblical Christian and not be a "Predestinarian?"
Why do you ask a question that is answered by the rest of the post you
are responding too? Didn't you read it? The answer was right in front
of your nose. If not for your impatience, irresponsibility and
impertinence, you would have already had your answer.
So since you turned up your nose at that answer, I will give you an
even briefer answer: easily. All the Biblical Christian has to do is
read Scripture without your 'Reform' theological prejudices and
misunderstandings. This is _exactly_ what St. Symeon did in the
sermon I translated in the post you replied to.
>Just logically, God, capital "G" is immutable and sovereign.
Well, now that is something even we can agree on, but
predestinarianism does _not_ follow from His "immutability and
sovereignty". This is why I have long suspected you (and the other
predestinarians in this NG) habitually insist on a _contentious_ sense
of the word 'sovereign'.
>To be the Immutable, Sovereign Creator means that everything is
>governed by God.
"Governed" by, yes. But this is only _government_, NOT
determination. He made the sovereign choice to leave His rational
creations with free will. That is _why_ St. Symeon gave us the example
of the king watching contestants in the theater (forum): the king's
sovereignty shows up in this example when the king gives the crown to
the victors.
But there is another important way His sovereignty shows up in the
Saint's example, another important way you missed. It is that:
He fights alongside us, and mystically gives us power, and so Himself
rather than we work our victory over the enemy. [previous post]
THIS is the truth explained over and over in Scripture. But you
misinterpret the explanation _every_ single time, misreading it as
saying instead that God is the "author of choice". Scripture says no
such thing.
>Everything is bounded and utilized in His providential government.
Again: but not determined. Agents with free will DO exist.
>He is the LORD of Lords and it is only the Divine ordering of all
>things to but one Goal which provides the real plot of the story.
This is where you depart from the true sense of the words
'providential', 'government' and 'sovereign' to add your own errors.
>Teleological creation lies latent in the orderly sequence of its
>parts.
Now what was that supposed to mean? It sounds like a confused
interpretation of Rom 1:20.
>God, capital "G" stands outside of the cosmos and therefore outside
>of time. There is nothing that stands outside of His providence nor
>can it be otherwise.
Must you keep repeating what does not even support you? Of course
nothing is _outside_ His Providence. But you miss the point in the
same way as you always do: being "inside His Providence" does NOT
imply that He _determined_ it.
>Biblically, the case is beyond argument.
This is empty braggadocio. And the argument was right in front of you,
yet you ignored it!
>In the Jewish scriptures the whole of them rest on the presupposition
>of an all pervasive and perfect plan.
This would not be inaccurate, if you did not insist on a contentious
sense of 'pervasive' too. At best, you could use the word 'pervasive'
in an extensive , not an intensive sense. That is, all outcomes are
subject to His control, but this control is not _so_ intensive that it
_determines_ all the outcomes. Remember the example of the king in the
theater in St. Symeon's sermon.
>Rain does not fall apart from His will and providence.
True, but this does not support you.
>Divine Lordship is a cardinal doctrine of the Jewish mindset.
It is. All the more sad then, that you pervert 'lordship' into
"control-freak style obsessive tyranny".
Get a clue, Loren. Just because _you_ are a control-freak does not
mean that God is.
>All trials and all persecutions are viewed in relationship to God's
>sovereign rule over His creation and His elect.
True, but this does not support you either.
>Cicero's "For gold, land and all the blessings of life we return
>thanks to God; but no one ever returned thanks to God for virtue"
Even if Cicero really did say that, you are quoting him out of
context: 'virtus' in those days really did have a different meaning
that 'virtue' in the Christian context. Cicero was no Pelagian, nor
Semi-Pelagian!
>is mined from the tree of good and evil
Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! That catachresis is even more painful that
MacArthur's "I listen with thirsty ear"! Nobody _mines_ a tree; they
_harvest_ it. Mining is done from the ground.
>where man became his own reference point. It is Pelagianism at its
>root -humanistic autocracy.
So you love to repeat. But your fevered desire to raise this
accusation time and time again is not fueled by a love of Christian
truth, but by a love of an evil witch-hunt against "free-willers".
How do I know this? By your repeated bad behavior of making wildly
outrageous assertions, and then failing to come up with any
substantial evidence for them when challenged, just like McCarthy with
his list of Communist Party members, which turned out to be a fraud
and a hoax. And this assertion about "Pelagianism at is root" is a
perfect example.
Let's take a look, for example, at what Augustine said Pelagianism
was. We will then immediately see that what _you_ say is not even
plausible. For he says, commenting on Jer 17:5:
Ut ergo ostenderet sic se admonuisse hominem, ut nec in se ipso
haberet spem, propterea cum dixisset: Maledictus homo qui spem habet
in homine, mox addidit: et firmat carnem brachii sui. Brachium pro
potentia posuit operandi. In nomine autem carnis intellegenda est
humana fragilitas. Ac per hoc firmat carnem brachii sui, qui potentiam
fragilem atque invalidam, id est humanam, sibi sufficere ad bene
operandum putat, nec adiutorium sperat a Domino. Propterea subiecit:
et a Domino discedit cor eius. Talis est haeresis pelagiana, non
antiqua, sed ante non multum tempus exorta: contra quam haeresim cum
fuisset diutius disputatum, etiam ad concilia episcopalia novissima
necessitate perventum est; unde vobis, non quidem omnia, sed tamen
aliqua legenda direxi. Nos ergo ad bene operandum spem non habeamus in
homine, firmantes carnem brachii nostri: nec a Domino discedat cor
nostrum; sed ei dicat: Adiutor meus esto, ne derelinquas me, neque
despicias me, Deus salutaris meus
[De Gratia & Libero Arbitrio 4.6
http://www.augustinus.it/latino/grazia_libero_arbitrio/index.htm]
or:
Therefore to show that such is his meaning, warning man not to put his
hope in himself ... considering one's self sufficient for doing good,
neither hoping on the Lord for help. For this reason he adds, "and his
heart withdraws from the Lord". Such is the heresy of the Pelagians
So then what follows from these words of the saint? What is the root
of Pelagianism? It is "sibi sufficere ad bene operandum putat, nec
adiutorium sperat a Domino", i.e., "considering one's self sufficient
for doing good, neither hoping on the Lord for help".
Notice that there is _nothing_ about man considering himself his "own
reference point". Not in Augustine's description of Pelagianism. And
we should believe he knew better than you, since he devoted so many
years to fighting the heresy -- and was the leading philosopher and
theologian in the West at his time. You have none of these
credentials.
Besides: you must have been relying on yourself when you came up with
that painful catachresis about "mining" a tree;) So why are _you_
turning a deaf ear to the warning of Jer 17:5?
>In the NT, the doctrine of predestination become even more defined
>and dogmatic, such that a real distinction emerges between the merely
>"called" and the truly "chosen." (Mt 22:14)
Once more you illustrate all too clearly that you neither read nor
understood the post you are replying to.
>The only author of "choice" is God (Mk 13:20)
How dishonest of you, Loren, to give this verse reference without
including the text itself, as if it supported you. Of course it does
not.
But of course, you have no choice, do you? According to your own
broken theology, you do not make the choice. So God Himself must have
chosen that you resort to such dishonesty over and over again.
Such a blasphemous conclusion should have been proof enough to you how
wrong you are. But you are really good at squeezing your eyes shut
while reading Scripture to your own perdition, just like the people
St. Symeon criticized in his sermon [previous post].
Now let's look at the verse itself, to see how wrong you are: it
reads:
And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be
saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the
days. (Mar 13:20 RSVA)
Now what has _this_ got to do with whether or not He is the only one
who makes choices? NOTHING. The only 'choice' it refers to is _His_
choice, it says nothing about the choice of others. It CERTAINLY DOES
NOT say these choices do not exist. The Augustine citations in this
post show that he -does- believe we make our own choices.
>who in eternity past foreordained the elect "before the foundation of
>the world (Eph 1:4).
What? Didn't you notice what Augustine said about this verse? You are
proud of claiming that Augustine supported your predestinarianism, but
how could you miss how he contradicts you here?
And yes, he does contradict you plainly: for while _you_ say God is
the only "author of choice", the saint says:
Proinde, carissimi, sicut superioribus testimoniis sanctarum
Scripturarum probavimus, ad bene vivendum et recte agendum esse in
homine liberum voluntatis arbitrium, [op. cit 4.7]
i.e.:
So then, [my] dears, just as with the above witnesses from the Holy
Scriptures we have proved THERE EXISTS IN MAN FREE CHOICE OF THE WILL
for living well and doing righteously,
Since he calls it FREE CHOICE OF THE WILL, it is clear that he cannot
agree with you that God alone has choice. How can God alone have
choice, when we have free choice?
But again unlike you, he realizes that he must at the same time
maintain an assertion that _appears_ to contradict, this, since he
finishes the sentence with:
sic etiam de gratia Dei, sine qua nihil boni agere possumus, quae sint
divina testimonia videamus. [op. cit. 4.7]
or:
so also concerning the grace of God, without which we are not able to
do any good, let us see what the divine witness are.
So you see, Loren, Augustine realizes how contradictory these seem,
but he continues to insist on both. Why? BECAUSE BOTH THE NEED FOR
GOD'S GRACE AND THE REALITY OF OUR OWN FREE WILL ARE TAUGHT IN
SCRIPTURE.
>God alone has decreed who would be elected into the remnant (Lk 18:7;
>Mt 24:22, 24, 31; Mk 18:20-22.)
Wrong again, as shown above. Are you deliberately stringing together
long lists of irrelevant quotations? How could anyone think that Lk
18:7 had anything to do with who is elected into the remnant, or how
it is decreed? It is about the need for persistence in prayer.
>John 6:44 "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws
>him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
Another favorite 'proof-text' of the misguided! This does not support
you either. But because the habit of misreading is _so_ deeply
ingrained in your mind, you have a hard time reading this without
seeing your own conclusion already in it. But it is not there.
How do I know it is not there? Because _I_ read it in context! The
context is much more clearly seen in Joh 6:41-52:
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which
came down from heaven." They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of
Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have
come down from heaven'?" Jesus answered them, "Do not murmur among
yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws
him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the
prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Every one who has
heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Not that any one has
seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the
Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal
life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the
wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from
heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread
which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will
live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the
world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying,
"How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (Joh 6:41-52 RSVA)
Now what do I see in the context? What is it that you missed? First of
all, there are the tenses of the verbs, 'believe', 'hears' etc. They
are ALL present tense. So it is impossible for them to refer to
momentary or inceptive actions; they refer to continuous, habitual
actions.
How does this undo your error? First of all, because as Theophylact
points out, simply hearing once is not enough. The 'believer' _Christ_
refers to in this passage is the one who not only hears the intial
call, but remains with the voice of the Teacher and learns from
Him. But then who is it who "the Father who sent Me draws (Joh 6:44)"?
It is the same person: the one who stays, who can do so only of his
own free will.
And how do I know he can only do this of his own free will? Because
the examples in this same passage, their fathers who ate manna and
died, are examples of men who heard the call at first, followed Moses
out of Egypt, but did not _abide_ in the calling. Not only in the NT
(Heb 3:7-10), but also the OT (Psa 32:9 ) these men are rebuked for
falling away NOT because they were not 'foreordained', but because
they turned away themselves. That is _why_ Hebrews is able to use them
as the example to exhort the Hebrews not to fall away.
Now I know you will deny that this is 'free will' and return to your
old bad habit of eisegesis, claiming that God made the choice. But if
this were so, then Hebrews could not say:
TAKE CARE, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving
heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But EXHORT ONE
ANOTHER every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you
may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb 3:12-13 RSVA)
How could he tell _them_ to "take care", if it is God's choice? How
could he tell them to _exhort_ each other, if it is God's choice? What
did you _think_ 'exhortation' is? Of course exhortation is given only
to agents with free-will.
And you who claim Augustine supports you, take note: Augustine agrees
with me _exactly_ on this point. That is why he says:
Hoc enim liberum arbitrium hominis exhortatur et in aliis, quibus
dicit: Rogamus ne in vacuum gratiam Dei suscipiatis [op. cit. 5.12]
Utquid enim eos rogat, si gratiam sic susceperunt, ut propriam
perderent voluntatem?
Therefore this free choice [of the will] is exhorted in others, to
whom he said, "we ask that you not receive the grace of God in vain (2
Cor 6:1)". Why is he asking them, if they accepted grace in such a way
as to lose their own will?
Are you embarrassed now, Loren? You certainly should be. For in this
one small quote, Augustine has refuted you on _two_ of your favorite
errors: 1) that God alone is the "author of choice" and 2) that grace
is irresistible". For this _is_ what he means by "receiving the grace
of God in vain": resisting grace, and resisting it effectively.
>It is only in accordance with His good pleasure that anyone is truly
>chosen.
Again: true, but this does not support you, as explained above.
>This is only the effect of the call as the elect are already
>predetermined (Mt 13)
More of your 'eisegesis'. There is no 'predetermination' in Mt 13. The
seed that falls on rocky ground represents the word rejected by one
kind of bad free will, the seed that falls into thorns another. But
the seed that falls on good ground represents what happens when the
word falls on to the good kind of free will.
>and all providence is ordered for the benefit of the elect and at the
>last day, it is they who are separated out of the non-elect to gain
>their inheritance which has been prepared for them from all eternity
>(Mt 25:34).
True, but this does not support you -- as so often explained above.
>And we haven't even begun unless we look at the Pauline gospel. Who
>can deny his teaching on election being all and only "from Him,
>through Him and to Him."
So then why _are_ you denying his teaching and teaching
predestinarianism instead?
>To argue against predestination and election is to stand opposed to
>the Scriptures, the teachings of Christ and His apostles. It is to
>stand opposed to Augustine. It is stand opposed to logic.
This is all braggadocio. None of it is true. Why, every single time
you have quoted Augustine you have _misquoted_ him. How could you know
what "stands opposed to Augustine" and what does not, when _you_ stand
opposed to him all the time? But you don't even realize how opposed to
him you stand because you have never _read_ De Gratia & Libero
Arbitrio in its entirety.
How do I know this? Because if you had, you would have realized how
the saint contradicts you _so_ plainly in that work -- and in many
others.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)