Do we have any choice in our salvation for example. Can we reject God? Or did God pre determine my own salvation and I can not resist it.
I believe in synergy, a working together w/God and in a life of repentance/transformation to become children of God. To me the elect or predestined can be understood to be preordained. We are predestined/preordained to become like Christ if we live a life of holiness and repentance. Of course apart from Christ we can do nothing. Yes we have free will, we can strive to live a life of goodness or evil. He loves the world,everyone and wants none to perish. If we didn't have free will our faith would seem to be like the basic belief of Islam,"you can only get to paradise by living a life of righteousness but you can only live a life of righteousness if it is the will of Allah" No thanks. I have much hope in the words of Jesus,"whoever comes to me I will never turn away"John6:37. We have the choce to come to Him or not.
To be honest I don't think most Anglicans believe the same, from my understanding most believe salvation is predestined ("the elect"). I think this stems from the 39 articles, Calvinistic influence, etc. Unfortunately, that's been my experience.
In the Homily on Justification Three things must go together in our justification. In these aforesaid places, the Apostle touches specially three things, which must go together in our justification. On God's part, his great mercy and grace. On Christ’s part, justice, that is the satisfaction of God's justice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of his body and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling the law perfectly and completely. On our part a true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, which yet is not ours, but by God's working in us. So in our justification, is not only God's mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the Apostle calls the justice of God, and it consists in paying our ransom, and fulfilling of the law. So the grace of God does not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but only shuts out the justice of our works, being the merits of deserving our justification. Article 17. Of Predestination and Election Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God. _______________ As I said before in discussing Article 17 I think Article XVII’s last word is sage. Furthermore we must receive God’s promises as set forth in Holy Scripture. It is quite wrong to take an argument about predestination and use it against the words we find in Scripture. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; John 6:37 In a sense predestination is mostly about the nature of God, all powerful, and all knowing, and not about our life as a manipulated game where our free will is only an illusion. One has the feeling that those who write the articles are alerting us to the danger of taking this discussion too far.
Thanks so much This stuff seems like a tripping point. We can read the pre reformation teachings on these things and there is an idea of us freely working with God. Growing and conforming to his will. Than after the reformation we see this hard line against free will and a focus on predestination
I guess I believe the way I do about free will in large part because of my Orthodox background, which I think is justified and upheld by Scripture also such belief existed long before the Reformation. That being said Scripture can be used like stones, thrown around like weapons. I guess we go with what makes sense, Scripture, and Tradition, and to me the tradition of the first millennium when the Church was most strongly united has a lot of authority when it comes to questions of the faith.
And not only the orthodox but also catholic theology reflects this. All churches pre 1500 believed this.
That's my understanding. RC and Orthodox had same beliefs until the Great Schism....it would be nice if all the churches of Christ were one and in communion with each other.
I tend to think of soteriology in terms relative to TULIP, simply because it's convenient. My thoughts are as follows: I believe in Total Depravity. Human beings are incapable of doing good things by themselves. God alone helps people do good things, because "every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17). I believe in Unconditional Election. By this, I mean that God helps people do good independent of any righteousness or foreknown righteousness in people, simply by his will and pleasure. I don't feel comfortable speaking to what or how may people his grace is unconditionally offered to. These two beliefs indicate that humans are utterly incapable of turning to God by themselves, and lack the free will to choose God. However, the last few are where I differentiate from Dort. I do not believe in Limited Atonement. I believe that Christ's work on the cross is capable of atoning for the sins of the whole world. I do not believe in Irresistible Grace or Perseverance of the Saints. I believe that God's grace can be resisted both initially and after justification, specifically through apostasy or unrepentant sin. TL;DR- Righteousness comes to people only by God's free gift, but it can be rejected. Righteousness does not come by our free will. but it can be rejected by our free will. I think this is consonant with the Lutheran view.
I don't know about that. St. Bernard and Bonaventure were big on predestination. The Dominicans as such were always very hard about predestination, and Thomas Aquinas was considered so close to Calvinism that Alfred Molina had to invent a whole new theory, Middle Knowledge, which from then on was considered the "jesuit view" as contrasted with the hardline "dominican" view of strong predestination as taught in Thomas and the Dominicans. Certainly over the last 50+ years as Evangelicanism came on the rise, Catholic apologists sought to distance themselves from anything Protestant, and Molina, middle knowledge, voluntarism have become the mainstays of modern Catholic thought, but they are very far from traditional Thomism. In general we Anglicans embrace both. We agree with the traditional view of predestination while merging it with voluntarism, in that in one sense we are foreknown by God, but in another sense we are free in the current moment, because we don't talk about causes univocally, but analogically. This is the traditional view, as taught in the Articles, and by our Divines over the centuries.
Could you dumb that down to my level, not sure how both can work Not being argumentive I just do not get it.
I mean I learned this stuff like 15-20 years ago but it came down to basically the fact that in the traditional sense of understanding espoused by Thomas Aquinas and the Anglican divines, we can't speak of God in terms of a matter of fact, or that we can know anything about him (via philosophy) that is factual and 'true' in the same way that we might know that 2+2=4 is true. This has to do with God's incomprehensibility or something like that? The only way we may speak of God is through analogies to human realities. Thus when we say that God is angry it isn't that he's truly angry, but that whatever he is, its analogy to human reaction would be anger. Thus all facts about God that have to do with philosophy must be understood in this analogical sense... if that makes sense? Sorry...
That's what I understand of it. Among the documents on this site is William King's treatise on predestination that says that very thing.
If any are interested we have several historic Anglican documents related to this topic, such as, Archbishop William King, Sermon on Predestination as Consistent with Free Will http://www.anglican.net/works/william-king-sermon-predestination-consistent-with-free-will/ Bishop John Overall, The Opinion of the Church of England Concerning Predestination http://www.anglican.net/works/histo...ws-of-lancelot-andrewes-john-overall-1710/#p5
Free will, as I have always understood it, means that we can, through our own will and actions, achieve perfection in this life and salvation in the next without divine assistance or prompting. I believe, though I have not researched it with any particular focus, this is what is referred to as Pelagianism. The converse of this thought of course is that we can freely reject divine law and prompting, act in a manner that is totally sinful and evil, and when we do so we do so knowingly, volitionally, voluntarilly and free from any external influence. In short, when we sin it's all our fault and when we do right its all our glory. I don't see how that squares with man's fallen nature or Christ's role as Savior. I recently read this quote from Irenaeus: "For as it was not possible that man who had once for all been conquered and who had been destroyed through disobedience, could reform himself and obtain the prize of victory; and as it was impossible that he could attain to salvation who had fallen under the power of sin, the Son effected both of these things, being the Word of God, descending from the Father, becoming incarnate, stooping low, even to death and consummating the arranged plan of our salvation." Irenaeus, Against All Heresies, 3.8.2) Man, as a result of Adam's sin, is fallen. Often this is spoken of in terms of total depravity. St. Paul calls it enslavement to sin. Slaves have no freedom. Even if man of his on will is desparate to live a life free from sin, he can't. Moreover, man is said to be spiritually dead, dead in his tresspasses. Dead things have no freedom either. They cannot of their own accord choose to be alive again. Dead slaves are not what I envision when I think of truly free people. However, man is not an automaton. Clearly we know from our own experience that man can choose and act in at least some degree of his own accord. For example, you are choosing to read this and this choice is itself the result of a culmination of choices that have led up to it. Further, the bible with its many commands and exhortations to eschew evil and go good, would be utter nonsense if man had no power of choice to do one or the other. Moreover, man can reject God's free gift of salvation in Christ, otherwise it is no gift at all but a burden forced on someone, whether for own good or not. But I believe we can also agree that that such freedom is limited. Limited by time and space; by our own physical, mental, moral, politico-economic limitations; and by the choices of others. We are also limited in doing right by our own nature. As a result of Adam's first sin, mankind is corrupt and corruptible, ie, under the power of sin and death: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Man's nature has been darkened and all of creation with it. And sitting on the throne of each man's corruption is his heart! Our Lord teaches "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies" The preacher of Ecclesiastes "This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead." St. Paul admits "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I ... For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me ... O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Man, in his very nature is inclined to evil. Not only do we do bad things, we want to bad things and even when we don't want to do bad things, we do them anyway. That's not freedom. Not real freedom anyway. But more than that our freedom to do right is limited by our blindness. Eve was deceived by the devil in the form of a serpent and since that time we have been decieved ever since. We were (and in many respects still are) in darkness. Our Lord brought us light. He has shown us the way that is good, He has opened the eyes of the faithful by showing them His truth, who is Truth incarnate. Blind men do not make themselves sighted. Without others with sight to tell them of the depth of their blindness, blind men born into blindness would not even realize they were blind. They are decieved. As Hoesea says, they are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Thus, imho mankind has free will on only a limited sense and certainly not to the extent that we can save ourselves or reach a state of perfection without God's help. Some great thoughts on Free Will, put much better than I can, are of course Article X ("Of Free Will") of Articles of Religion. I would also commend to you the Lutheran discussion of free will in the Book of Concord's Defense of the Augsburg Confession: http://bookofconcord.org/defense_17_freewill.php