• The Origin of Free-Will Heresy

    The origin of ‘christianized’ free-will philosophy is not something that can be learned in seminary. Not even in the Reformed seminaries. The typical view is that the apostasy away from Pauline doctrine began after the ‘councils’ had defended the ‘church’ against ‘heresy’ (the 6th century A.D. ff.). My favorite class in seminary was Patristic thought; I set out to write a paper defending the ‘fathers’ on the gospel. I was told repeatedly that the ‘fathers’ were as ‘evangelical’ as the 16th century Reformers; that one only needed to understand the difference in expression. Hogwash. I spent many hours searching through the 100-500 A.D. writings for the gospel. Apart from a few snippets here and there in teachers such as Ambrose and Lactanctius, the cupboard was bare. I ended up writing my class paper on a different subject: the Patristic view of the coming of the Son of Man in Dan. 7:13,14.

    Free will is prominent in Greek and Rabbinic philosophy. Both the liberals (Sadduccees) and conservatives (Pharisees) in Judaism taught and believed it. At the time Christ was born, the predestinarian teaching of the OT prophets was adhered to almost exclusively among the Essenes. But where did ‘christianized’ free-will doctrine have its origin? My personal belief is that it began in the midst of the Pauline assemblies in the form of old wives fables; hence Paul’s silencing of a certain form of woman-speak. But the cancerous influence of this destructive ‘gossip’ transformed into doctrine and was adopted by the ‘wolves’ of false leadership ascending to power after Paul’s death (Acts 20:29,30).

    Although indications of departure from the apostles’ teaching may be found in earlier Patristic writings, the first bold and outright attempt to synthesize Platonic free-will theory with Christian teaching was promoted by Justin in his first Apology. There is no Christian salvation taught in Justin; his doctrine is purely Greek philosophy. There is no atonement, no imputation, no election, no assurance, and no justification by faith alone. The only salvation taught here is that which comes by our own merit, free-will, works, eating Jesus, and water regeneration. Justin defends sacrament as sacred physical mystery in the likeness of pagan religions.

    I also personally believe that Justin taught Unitarianism and denied the Trinity.

    In studying these things, the observations of Kelley are timely and relevant:
    Indeed, while the conviction of redemption through Christ has always been the motive force of Christian faith, no final and universally accepted definition of its achievement has been formulated to this day. Thus it is useless to look for any systematic treatment of the doctrine in the popular Christianity of the second century . . . while enumerating all sorts of benefits bestowed by Christ, the Apostolic Fathers nowhere co-ordinate their main ideas or attempt to sketch a rationale of salvation. When we analyse their utterances, we find that their chief emphasis is on what Christ has imparted to us--new knowledge, fresh life, immortality, etc. J.N.D. Kelley, Early Christian Doctrines(Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 163-164.

    It must be admitted that, as compared with the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers as a whole are not greatly preoccupied with sin, and that their writings exhibit a marked weakening of the atonement idea. Although satisfied that Christ died for us (often the repetition of the formula has a conventional ring), they assign a relatively minor place to the atoning value of his death. What looms much larger in their imagination is the picture of Christ as the lawgiver, the bestower of knowledge, immortality, and fellowship with God. Ibid, p. 165.
    Below are quotes from the first Apology giving evidence of Justin’s many doctrines of devils. My comments are interspersed at times. To check the accuracy of any of the quotes, the full text may be found at the following link:

    http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html
    And we have been taught, and are convinced, and do believe, that He accepts those only who imitate the excellences which reside in Him, temperance, and justice, and philanthropy, and as many virtues as are peculiar to a God who is called by no proper name. And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design,they are deemed worthy, and so we have received--of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering. For as in the beginning He created us when we were not, so do we consider that, in like manner, those who choose what is pleasing to Him are, on account of their choice, deemed worthy of incorruption and of fellowship with Him. For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith. And we think it for the advantage of all men that they are not restrained from learning these things, but are even urged thereto. For the restraint which human laws could not effect, the Word, inasmuch as He is divine, would have effected, had not the wicked demons, taking as their ally the lust of wickedness which is in every man, and which draws variously to all manner of vice, scattered many false and profane accusations, none of which attach to us.
    NOTE: Justin above blames the demons for what God actually does in blinding men to the Word: as in the parable of the soils.

    But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. NOTE: Justin completely denies God’s sovereignty here, in the same fashion as the ‘critics’ that Paul silences in Romans 9. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.

    And the holy Spirit of prophecy taught us this, telling us by Moses that God spoke thus to the man first created: "Behold, before thy face are good and evil: choose the good." And again, by the other prophet Isaiah, that the following utterance was made as if from God the Father and Lord of all: "Wash you, make you clean; put away evils from your souls; learn to do well; judge the orphan, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord: And if your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool; and if they be red like as crimson, I will make them white as snow. And if ye be willing and obey Me, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye do not obey Me, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." And that expression, "The sword shall devour you," does not mean that the disobedient shall be slain by the sword, but the sword of God is fire, of which they who choose to do wickedly become the fuel. Wherefore He says, "The sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." And if He had spoken concerning a sword that cuts and at once despatches, He would not have said, shall devour. And so, too, Plato, when he says, "The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless," took this from the prophet Moses and uttered it. For Moses is more ancient than all the Greek writers. And whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things. Ha! Justin blames the darkness of his own Greek philosophy on the prophets! And hence there seem to be seeds of truth among all men; but they are charged with not accurately understanding [the truth] when they assert contradictories. So that what we say about future events being foretold, we do not say it as if they came about by a fatal necessity; but God foreknowing all that shall be done by all men, and it being His decree that the future actions of men shall all be recompensed according to their several value, He foretells by the Spirit of prophecy that He will bestow meet rewards according to the merit of the actions done, always urging the human race to effort and recollection, showing that He cares and provides for men. But by the agency of the devils death has been decreed against those who read the books of Hystaspes, or of the Sibyl,(1) or of the prophets, that through fear they may prevent men who read them from receiving the knowledge of the good, and may retain them in slavery to themselves; which, however, they could not always effect. For not only do we fearlessly read them, but, as you see, bring them for your inspection, knowing that their contents will be pleasing to all. And if we persuade even a few, our gain will be very great; for, as good husbandmen, we shall receive the reward from the Master.

    As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."

    And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. Andthis washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

    But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth,by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion

    And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught thatthe food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me,(7) this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
    Whatever this is, it is NOT Christianity!
    This article was originally published in forum thread: The Origin of Free-Will Heresy started by Robert R. Higby View original post
    Comments 35 Comments
    1. Brandan Kraft's Avatar
      The early church not only apostatized with the "free will" heresy, but they also gutted the ekklesia...

      Without "free-will" I wonder if they could have evolved into the Roman Catholic WHORE church?

      Ignatius - Bishop of Antioch AD 110

      To the Ephesians:

      "Your REVEREND presbytery is tuned to the Bishop as strings to a lyre...Let us be careful not to resist the Bishop, that through our submission to the Bishop we may belong to God...We should regard the Bishop as the Lord Himself..."

      To the Magnesians:
      "I advise you to always act in godly concord with the Bishop, presiding as the counterpart of God, and the presbyters as the counterpart of the council of the Apostles...As the Lord did nothing without the Father, either by Himself or by means of the Apostles, so you must do nothing without the Bishop and the presbyters."

      To the Trallians:
      "...respect the Bishop as the counterpart of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of the Apostles: without those no church is recognised."

      To the Smyrneans:
      "Let no-one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the Bishop...it is not permitted to baptise or hold a love-feast independently of the Bishop. But whatever he approves, that is also well pleasing to God."


      Clement of Rome - Epistle to the Corinthian Church in AD 95:

      "The high priest has been given his own special services, the priests have been assigned their own place, and the Levites have their special ministrations enjoined on them. The layman is bound by the ordinances of the laity."

      "The Apostles have received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ was sent forth by God and the Apostles by Christ. Both these appointments were made in an orderly way according to the will of God...The Apostles appointed the first-fruits of their labours to be bishops and deacons for those who would believe."


      Tertullian - AD 200

      "The supreme priest (that is the Bishop) has the right of conferring baptism: after him the presbyters and deacons, but only with the Bishop's authority. Otherwise the laity also have the right...how much more is the discipline of reverence and humility incumbent upon laymen (since it also befits their superiors)...It would be idle for us to suppose that what is forbidden to PRIESTS is allowed to the laity. The distinction between the order of clergy and the people has been established by the authority of the Church."

      Cyprian - Bishop of Carthage AD 250.

      "If Christ Jesus our Lord and God is Himself the High Priest of God the Father, and first offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father, and commanded this to be done in remembrance of Himself, then assuredly the priest acts truly in Christ's place when he reproduces what Christ did, and he then offers a true and complete sacrifice to God the Father, if he begins to offer as he sees Christ Himself has offered."

      Ignatius - Bishop of Antioch, AD 110

      In his letter to the believers in Smyrna he writes:

      "It is not permitted to...baptise independently of the Bishop."

      Justin Martyr, AD 150

      "All who accept and believe as true the things taught and said by us, and who would undertake to have the power to live accordingly, are taught to pray and entreat God, fasting, for the forgiveness of their former sins, while we join their prayer and fasting. Then we bring them to a place where there is water, where they are regenerated in the same way we were."


      Tertullian AD 200

      "The unwed should be deferred for temptation is waiting for them as alike in the case of the virgins because of their maturity, as in the case of the widowed because they are without partners. Let them wait until they marry, or until they are strengthened for continence. (i.e. sexual abstinence) Those who understand the importance of baptism will rather fear its attainment rather than its delay."


      "...there are sins too ruinous, and too serious to receive pardon. Such are murder, idolatry, fraud, denial of Christ, blasphemy, and of course adultery and fornication...Christ will no more intercede for those: he who has been born of God will never commit them: if he has committed them he will not be a son of God."


      Tertullian: "All waters, after the invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification: for the Spirit straightway comes upon them from the heavens and is upon the waters sanctifying them by His own power: and being thus sanctified they are imbued at the same time with the power of sanctifying."
      Cyprian - Bishop of Carthage AD 250

      "A man is not born by imposition of the hand when he receives the Holy Spirit, but in baptism."


      These quotes came from the book, ''The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius -- by Henry Bettenson (Translator). Oxford University Press, September 1969)"
    1. Robert R. Higby's Avatar
      There were two heresies clearly in broad-swing long before Justin:

      1. The rule of bishops over the conscience.
      2. Neo-legalism: salvation by keeping the new law.

      The earlier of these quotations (Ignatius, Clement) are strong on the rule of bishops, which clearly denies the gospel priesthood of all believers. I would submit, however, that bold sacramentalism and outright free-will philosophy as the unquestioned standard of orthodoxy were popularized by Justin--not before. Of course, further study may prove me wrong on that.

      I do believe that free-will heresy existed prior to Justin in the assemblies: as old-wives fables. But Justin is the person who legitimatized free-will and sacramentalism as all-encompassing dogma--based on Greek philosophy and false religion. Prior to him, there are only 'snippets' or 'hints' of these two heresies in the well-published writings.
    1. disciple's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by BillTwisse View Post
      Where in the history of Christian dogma did the teaching named 'Arminianism' actually begin? Is Arminianism a false label?
      i know what you mean. i sort of had this conversation the other day with a pastor at my church. he came up and asked me how seminary was going and i told him i was taking church history. he said that he thought that people in seminary should take theology first and then church history so that they can already know about the doctrines and theology when they learn about them in the span of history. he said that he thought that "the worst thing that ever happened to the church was arminianism because that's when God stopped being God." i agreed but said that i think it started much ealier and referenced pelagian and then thought about it and went back even further and referenced greek philosophy which is what i think is the real source of this man-centered doctrine. and i think the early church quickly fell away from the true gospel due to the insurgence of pagans and ex-Greek philosophers to the church (it seems that almost all of the early polemicists and apologists came from one of the two backgrounds) and the concentration in the East on speculative theology. the only early discussion that i know on the sovereignty of God and the bondage of the will is from Augustine and i'm not too familiar with his writings (though i did read his anti-pelagian writings). but this discussion is quite interesting to me since i'm at this moment going through this discussion/section in my church history textbook. anyway, i'd be interested in hearing more from yall on this.
    1. Skeuos Eleos's Avatar
      Has anyone come across anything pre-Augustine which appears to be anti-free will? It is not surprising to me, knowing the depravity of man and the deceitfulness of the heart, that "pelagianism" existed before Pelagus! However, given the incidence of writings which appear to be so anti-grace (and from names which I had been led to believe were the 'bulwarks' of the early church) I would hope that there would at least be something to the contrary.

      Martin
    1. Robert R. Higby's Avatar
      Has anyone come across anything pre-Augustine which appears to be anti-free will?

      Paul, John, Peter, and other biblical authors! But that is not your question. I can find no Patristic references to a clear teaching on predestination before Augustine. Augustine himself retained a lot of the Greek philosophy inherited from these earlier bishops.
    1. tomas1's Avatar
      If you knew me better you would know how hilarious this sounds coming from me but allow me to say a few words in defense of the fathers.
      We have a huge advantage over the early church fathers we can read Calvin. In turn Calvin would have said it better if he had been able to read Gill etc. If we learned any thing from the discussion with Marc Carpenter on that other thread it is that all of us the fathers included say things that in our hearts we don’t mean. We still are flesh and bones our bodies are not redeemed yet.
      I think one reason you don’t find any discussion of predestination in the Church fathers is the same reason you don’t find it with a lot of Christians today. They have just not thought it through. This does not necessarily mean that they believe in Salvation by works. It might just mean that they need to be lovingly shown the Doctrines of Grace to fully understand the gift they have received.
      All of this shows the importance of not accepting anything even from the Church Fathers with out first testing it by the scriptures with the guidance of the spirit and the input of others in the body of Christ.
    1. wildboar's Avatar
      I believe that the origin of the free-will heresy can be found in Adam, it was He who first sought to gain Sovereign control. The seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman have existed side by side in the church since the beginning. In its earliest days the New testament church was busy battling gnosticism and trying to understand Christ. It is easy with the hindsight we have to speak of the foolishness of the early church fathers. However, I doubt that dropped in the same situation any one of us would do any better. It took the Pelagian controversy to make Augustine think things through as it always takes controversy for the church to develop doctrine. This should make us all appreciate the saints who have gone before us and take the time to read what they have written in the development of doctrine.

      Sola Gratia,
      WildBoar
    1. tomas1's Avatar
      Recently I read The Next Christendom by Philip Jenkins in it he describes the Phenomenon of syncretism that is occurring today around the world in the places that Christianity is expanding rapidly. The local people hear of a new religion that is more powerful than their local gods then in and effort to harness some this power for themselves they adopt some of the trappings of Christianity and overlay them on top of their own beliefs and a new cult is born. This pattern is repeated every time the Gospel is introduced to a new area. Some examples of this are the Moonies in Korea the Lords Resistance Army in Africa and Ghost Dance cult among Native Americans.
      I think this is exactly what went on in the first centuries of the Church first with the judaizers then later with the Pagan Gentiles. I think that’s why the Fathers are so full of Greek Philosophy and the Catholic Church is full of Idol Worship. It was just the story of Jesus papered over what they already believed.
      We need to keep in mind the speed with which the Gospel moved through the Roman Empire. According to Acts Paul only spent 3 weeks in Thessalonica and left a fully functioning Church its no wonder some people there were confused about whether or not the resurrection had already happened. Most of the three thousand saved at Pentecost probably quickly went home and the Ethiopian took the Gospel to Africa with no New Testament after hearing only one sermon. There was very little detailed study and dialogue among the early church things just happened too fast.
      We are still dealing with the affects of that mixing of the Gospel and Pagan Rome
    1. Skeuos Eleos's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by tomas1 View Post
      We are still dealing with the affects of that mixing of the Gospel and Pagan Rome
      Tomas' reply set me thinking. In looking for continuity in pure doctrine since the resurrection we are perhaps seeking evidence for Jesus prophecy that He will build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail but this does not require evidence of pure doctrine. Perhaps we've been coming at this from a perspective that doctrine has deteriorated over time but in reality there were many heresies around even during Apostolic times as the NT was being written. Perhaps we've got things the wrong way round? Perhaps this building of the church includes an aspect of increasing enlightenment of various doctrines over time - with notable points in history where certain battles were fought and certain truths established. At the same time the enemy seeks to pervert the truth and introduce counterfeits as well as outright lies. Perhaps the greater the degree of light the more subtle the counterfeits and it may seem as though new idols and heresies appear but, in essence, there is nothing new under the sun. After all, the devil was a liar from the beginning and the sinful, proud, rebellious heart of man will find whatever it can to cling to.

      I am increasingly coming to BT's way of thinking - I want to avoid the use of labels, they do more harm than good and divert attention away from God's revelation though His Word and blind people into accepting the teaching of others without studying the Word for themselves.

      One thing is for sure: I rejoice that God opened my eyes and called me into a living hope and that he brought me into this fellowship where I am constantly called to think and question and study the Word of God and I rejoice that Christ WILL BUILD HIS CHURCH and the gates of Hell will not prevail! Amen! Come Lord Jesus!

      Martin
    1. disciple's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by Skeuos Eleos View Post
      In looking for continuity in pure doctrine since the resurrection we are perhaps seeking evidence for Jesus prophecy that He will build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail but this does not require evidence of pure doctrine.
      i think that both protestants and roman catholics/orthodox have assumed a meaning of this passage that is absolutely and totally foreign to the meaning and intent of Jesus. even though they differ in that protestants don't believe that Jesus was referring to a visible heiarchical organization (i.e., the catholic church) they seem to sort of think that this means that we'll be able to trace the 'true' church down through history. i think it's as simple as that He was saying that His assembly will last and survive, even through the death of its members (recall that tertullian said that the blood of the christians is the seed of the church). i don't think He was saying anything different than what He taught in the parable of the mustard seed and this happened from Mt 28 and Acts 1 and on through today. He did and is still building His church (i.e., saving His elect and adding them to the number of the church a la Acts 2:47) today. nothing, not even false doctrine, can prevent that. the simple fact is that we probably will never be able to trace a visible organization that was the sole repository of truth down through history because truth is not in an organization but a Person and His assembly (i.e., church) is not buildings or visible heirarchical organizations but a body of elect people saved by God's sovereign grace. but i really don't think that this is even necessary, even though it is tacitly assumed by most that this is a proper and necessary exercise. the only writings that have come down to us are those that were most influential, popular, etc. and do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of every single individual down through history. for example, if one of us lived back then and wrote nothing leaving no record of what we believed would it mean that we did not believe the way we did (or that no one believed the way we did)? so there will always be gaps in our understanding of history. this is just the way it is. so my contention is that there were always His elect holding to a true understanding (though perhaps not fully thought out and developed as really no one's theology really is) of salvation by the sovereign grace of God. that's my 2 cents anyway...
    1. Robert R. Higby's Avatar
      First of all, Martin, I want to state that I am awe-stricken at your incredible wisdom in interpreting the scriptures! This is not because you stated that you are coming around to my way of thinking. I am just inspired to a greater service to our Lord and King by what he has accomplished in your ministry and witness for Him! You are blessed in your insights and are certainly a blessing to me personally.

      Brandan states:
      the simple fact is that we probably will never be able to trace a visible organization that was the sole repository of truth down through history because truth is not in an organization but a Person and His assembly (i.e., church) is not buildings or visible heirarchical organizations but a body of elect people saved by God's sovereign grace. but i really don't think that this is even necessary, even though it is tacitly assumed by most that this is a proper and necessary exercise. the only writings that have come down to us are those that were most influential, popular, etc. and do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of every single individual down through history. for example, if one of us lived back then and wrote nothing leaving no record of what we believed would it mean that we did not believe the way we did (or that no one believed the way we did)? so there will always be gaps in our understanding of history. this is just the way it is. so my contention is that there were always His elect holding to a true understanding (though perhaps not fully thought out and developed as really no one's theology really is) of salvation by the sovereign grace of God

      Well said--and I could not possibly have said it better! It is a miracle that the scriptures were preserved at all. The Papacy and Eastern church organizations had the power to destroy or change the apostolic testimony for many centuries. But God did not permit this to happen. At least we have the original testimony of the eyewitnesses to Christ's person and work. I have no doubt whatsoever that other writings of gospel believers were destroyed in masse. The Papacy preserved only the writings from the early Christian centuries that IT wanted to promote for the benefit of its own agenda. This fact should cause us to view God's testimony in scripture as the SOLE basis of the true gospel and ekklesia. The 'keys' of the kingdom are connected to THIS testimony alone--wherever it is believed and promulgated.
    1. Brandan Kraft's Avatar
      correction, disciple (doug) said that, not me - although I definitely agree!
    1. whs1's Avatar
      I looked up this very subject because of a work that God is doing in me to witness [book about free-will] that is entitled: "Freewill: God or man?" (my answer is God of course.

      I got some quotes from Siriach-Ecclessiasticus and Justin Matyr and Origen and other Church Fathers.

      I also did not know how heavily Greek Philosophy and other Cultures with their heresies may have influenced early Christianity. Good points. Thank you all.


      I would be of the view that the origin of this heresy was in the Garden of Eden where the Serpent said unto the woman:

      "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
      3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
      4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
      5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.""

      Bill

      and Damnable poison 'heresy' free-will is.
      "A fiction introduced into the church by Satan."
    1. Robert R. Higby's Avatar
      Great observations, whs1!

      I believe that Justin put Origen up to it. Origen only reasoned through the free-will theory of Justin to its logical and inevitable conclusion. That conclusion: no loving, merciful God would honor man's free will in this life and then deny it in the next--so man can choose to be saved in a future life.

      Yet the Catholic church condemned Origen as a heretic and made Justin a saint!

      It is interesting to note that even in the 4th century, by Eusebius and a host of others, Origen is quoted right along with everyone else as a revered Christian teacher! At that point he was not yet condemned by 'churchianity' so that was considered OK.
    1. whs1's Avatar
      Thanks for the info that I did not know there, Bill. I did not know where some of those "Churchianic" doctrines originated.
    1. sTT's Avatar
      The only think in Origin that was condemned was his teaching on the pre-existance of souls (Which pops up again in Italy during the Renaissance, with Michelangelo placing Eve under God's arm!).
    1. whs1's Avatar
      Anyone who taught "free-will" should have been condemned as a heretic. Just because no one condemned Origen on freewill makes him no less a heretic for it.
    1. sTT's Avatar
      Origin was a wonderful theologian who's single emphasis was the CROSS!

      (Speak with graciousness, whs1.)

      Origin taught Jesus Christ, the Gospel, and Scripture. The emphasis he placed on the Scripture, and beginning with what it meant in its original context while including a careful examination of it (the OT was scripture) for what of Christ and the Gospel was hidden in the Law, the Prophets and Psalms. . . is something that Evangelicals like us need to be very thankful to God for Origin for!

      Origen de Principiis.
      • Preface.
      1. All who believe and are assured that grace and truth were obtained through Jesus Christ, and who know Christ to be the truth, agreeably to His own declaration, "I am the truth,"1 derive the knowledge which incites men to a good and happy life from no other source than from the very words and teaching of Christ. And by the words of Christ we do not mean those only which He spake when He became man and tabernacled in the flesh; for before that time, Christ, the Word of God, was in Moses and the prophets. For without the Word of God, how could they have been able to prophesy of Christ? And were it not our purpose to confine the present treatise within the limits of all attainable brevity, it would not be difficult to show, in proof of this statement, out of the Holy Scriptures, how Moses or the prophets both spake and performed all they did through being filled with the Spirit of Christ. And therefore I think it sufficient to quote this one testimony of Paul from the Epistle to the Hebrews,2 in which he says: "By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of the Egyptians."3 Moreover, that after His ascension into heaven He spake in His apostles, is shown by Paul in these words: "Or do you seek a proof of Christ who speaketh in me? "4 http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/...#P6205_1085826
    1. sTT's Avatar
      (Who can we dig up from three hundred years ago?)


      Origen was born about 185 A.D. ...ordained him to the priesthood in 230 A.D. ...was tortured and imprisoned during the Decian persecution and died as a result a few years later, about 254 A.D. .....BUT.... after his death disputes arose and he was condemned as a heretic in 553 A.D.

    1. whs1's Avatar
      sTT, do you believe in men or in God's holy Son the Lord Jesus Christ?

      If you believe in Christ, it is clear that he taught AGAINST "freewill".
      Romans 3: 10 ""As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
      11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
      12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
      13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
      14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
      15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:
      16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:
      17 And the way of peace have they not known:
      18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
      19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
      20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.""

      There is no "ORIGEN" in the Bible. There is NO BIBLE IN ORIGEN EXCEPT THE TWISTING OF IT>! Jesus spoke plain and clear...what is wrong with what Jesus said???

      Is it too clear? NO MAN CAN COME...NO FREEWILL

      John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."John 6:65 "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.