Response to Leighton Flowers video on Luther vs Calvin, part 4: Leighton Flowers the inadvertent hyper-Calvinist vs Luther the Non-Calvinist

This is the fourth part of the response to Leighton Flowers video in regards to Luther vs Calvin (two Reformers who carried forth two different stream of Augustinian predestination thoughts). The first part is a defense of Augustine found here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/response-to-leighton-flowers-video-on.html?m=1

The second part refuted his caricatures of Lutheranism:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/response-to-leighton-flowers-video-on_29.html?m=1

The third part debunked Flowers’ false claims that Martin Luther held to Calvinist views like limited atonement and God’s saving and effectual grace was only intended for the elect, as well as his slanderous cheap shots at him where he accused him falsely of trying to “hide” such beliefs that he didn’t even affirmed:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/response-to-leighton-flowers-video-on_21.html?m=1

Flowers’ video can be found here:

https://youtu.be/pZrTO88WmDg

This part will deal with Leighton Flowers, though Provisionist in holding to man’s freewill is capable of choosing faith without any prevenient grace, inadvertently took the hypercalvinist position of Matthew 11:25-26.

At the 47:30 minute mark, 

 Flowers stated the reason that Jesus spoke in parabolic language was so that the Pharisees of that day would not recognize Him as their Messiah, or otherwise they would not have crucified Him.

Let that sink in. According to Flowers, God withheld the truth from some to leave them in their unbelief for which they would be judged for if they don’t repent later, when had He not done so, they would have recognized Him as their Messiah. For all Flowers’ attacks on Calvinism and his false (and mocking) accusations at Luther of holding to God’s divine grace was effectual to save through giving faith only for the chosen elect (and of trying to hide such views that Luther didn’t actually affirmed), Flowers took the Calvinist view of this passage of God withholding saving grace (though they defined grace differently with Flowers treating grace as revelation giving people opportunity to choose Christ) so that some (in this case, Pharisees) remained in their unbelief.

If anything, if we take into consideration his Provisionism, his view stated here is way worse? Why? According to him, all humanity is capable in of themselves to believe or not believe, and God doesn’t need to work inwardly in them to give them faith but His grace is located in His word preached that gives them the opportunity to believe or not. Yet, here, he was saying though they have such ability to believe, God prevented them from that opportunity so they would not believe (and for which He would judge them later, unless then repent). Aren’t hyper-Calvinists criticized for holding to God directly causes people directly to disbelieve whereas they would have believe?

Saying it was for God’s purpose that Christ being crucified for our sins does not change that fact. It was still acts of evil of men to crucify Him at the cross. According to Flowers, God withheld revelation from them so that they remained in unbelief and so they would crucified God the Son Incarnate, when they have capacity to believe and would have believed if given revelation that was withheld from them.

The Calvinist position isn’t that they would have believe had they been given revelation via word preached  beyond parables (though without prevenient grace) but they would continued to reject the truth as given them, unless God works to change their hearts. While Lutherans here disagree with Calvinists on whom God wants to give saving grace, they agree with each other that apart from divine prevenient grace (properly defined by Augustine and Aquinas without the synergistic baggage that was added to it later), man is incapable of believing the revelation given him by word being preached. In such views, God didn’t cause them to reject Him by withholding revelation as Flowers defined it as his view whereas they would accept it had it has been shown it to them.

Contrast what Flowers said with what monergist Luther’s view of universal saving grace in 1538 on Matthew 11:25-26:

 "Christ speaks especially against those who would be wise and judge in religious matters, because they have on their side the Law and human reason, which is overwise, exalting itself against the true religion both by teaching and by judging.Hence Christ here praises God as doing right when He conceals His secrets from the wise and prudent, because they want to be over and not under God.Not as though He hid it in fact or desired to hide it (for He commands it to be preached publicly under the entire heaven and in all lands), but that He has chosen that kind of preaching which the wise and prudent abhor by nature, and which is hidden from them through their own fault, since they do not want to have it-as is written Is. 6, 9: 'See ye indeed, but perceive not,' Lo, they see, i.e., they have the doctrine which is preached both plainly and publicly. Still they do not perceive, for they turn away from it and refuse to have it. Thus they hide the truth from themselves by their own blindness.And so, on the other hand,He reveals it to the babes; for the babes receive it when it is revealed to them. To them the truth is revealed since they wish and desire it."

Here we stand.

Response to Leighton Flowers video on Luther vs Calvin, part 3: refuting caricatures of Martin Luther on election, freewill and saving grace

 This is the third part of the response to Leighton Flowers video in regards to Luther vs Calvin (two Reformers who carried forth two different stream of Augustinian predestination thoughts). The first part is a defense of Augustine found here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/response-to-leighton-flowers-video-on.html?m=1

The second part refuted his caricatures of Lutheranism:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/response-to-leighton-flowers-video-on_29.html?m=1

Flowers’ video can be found here:

https://youtu.be/pZrTO88WmDg

This will not only refute the caricatures Leighton Flowers made of Luther’s beliefs but slanderous remarks accusing Luther wanting to hide his alleged Calvinistic beliefs.

From around the 57 minute and for around the next 40 minutes  Flowers accused Luther of not only holding to Calvinistic views of God ordaining some to be saved and others not to be saved, saving grace withheld from those who aren’t chosen, and Christ not  dying for the sins of those not chosen so that they perished for eternity in their sins (as how Flowers put it), but of wanting to hide his views rather than honestly have such views preached. 

At around the one hour and 16 minute mark, he said that if such views are that problematic then drop the system rather than hide his beliefs. There’s just one problem: the accusations Flowers made aren’t honest of what Luther held to at all.

For starters, he lumped all who affirmed Augustinian views of freewill as unable to on its own to come to Christ, unless given the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of them to do so, as all Calvinists. That isn’t honest, and he knows it.

Earlier on  at the 54:58 minute mark, Flowers rightfully criticized Ryan Reeves for claiming Arminians deny the need for God’s grace prior to faith. He correctly pointed out that Arminians hold to prevenient grace is needed prior to one can have saving faith. Because Arminians hold to such grace allows for man to choose for or against faith (synergism), that must mean they are closer to his views. 

What he didn’t mention here though was that the reason why Arminians, especially Wesleyans, affirmed prevenient grace was because they affirmed (along with Lutherans and Calvinists) as well the doctrine of total depravity meaning without such grace, man is born incapable-because of the sinful inclinations of his heart- to choose faith unless God works in man to move him towards faith. Keep in mind, his rhetoric was 1) only Calvinists hold to such view of total depravity (false, as proven by the existence of both Lutherans and Arminians) and 2) and such a view came from Manichaean and Gnostic heresies that Augustine introduced into the early church (false as shown by past  rebuttals written on this blog to Flowers’ chief source for his prop propaganda, Ken Wilson). 

Know what else Flowers didn’t mentioned? Prevenient grace itself is an Augustinian concept. While Arminians applied the term to mean it in a synergistic sense, monergistic Lutherans and Calvinists don’t (the term is more in disuse among them because of what Arminians did with it). The term simply meant that divine grace is needed prior to one can come to faith. It can mean salvation is all of God in regards to faith is given effectually as a gift (monergism) or it can mean grace gives man, who is previously incapable because of unborn sin, the ability to choose for or against Christ.

Consider Augustine’s words affirming prevenient grace in his anti-Pelagian writing On Nature and Grace chapter 31:

“In this matter, no doubt, we do ourselves, too, work; but we are fellow-workers with Him who does the work, because His mercy anticipates us. He anticipates us, however, that we may be healed; but then He will also follow us, that being healed we may grow healthy and strong. He anticipates us that we may be called; He will follow us that we may be glorified. He anticipates us that we may lead godly lives; He will follow us that we may always live with Him, because without Him we can do nothing.”

Aquinas’ Summa Theologica First Part of the Second Part, Quention 111: referred to this as prevenient grace:

“I answer that, As grace is divided into operating and cooperating, with regard to its diverse effects, so also is it divided into prevenient and subsequent, howsoever we consider grace. Now there are five effects of grace in us: of these, the first is, to heal the soul; the second, to desire good; the third, to carry into effect the good proposed; the fourth, to persevere in good; the fifth, to reach glory. And hence grace, inasmuch as it causes the first effect in us, is called prevenient with respect to the second, and inasmuch as it causes the second, it is called subsequent with respect to the first effect. And as one effect is posterior to this effect, and prior to that, so may grace be called prevenient and subsequent on account of the same effect viewed relatively to divers others. And this is what Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia xxxi): "It is prevenient, inasmuch as it heals, and subsequent, inasmuch as, being healed, we are strengthened; it is prevenient, inasmuch as we are called, and subsequent, inasmuch as we are glorified."

Flowers can’t play the Manichaean and Gnostic card on total depravity view without also trashing the Arminians whom he want to claim on his side, since the premise behind Arminian understanding of prevenient grace is total depravity. He can’t also play the Luther or Lutherans must be Calvinist card without doing the same to Arminians.

He complained throughout the video at the way Ryan Reeves framed the debates doing the Reformation in such a way to make his Provisionist views look ridiculous despite the fact that the debates during that era wasn’t between Reformers and Provisionists, but between Reformers and Rome (which at least affirmed grace is necessary prior to faith but insisted on our role in our conversion once grace is given).

Yet, the way Flowers was framing things had the intended effect of imputing views to Luther that he had did not hold to so he can throw baseless accusations that Luther didn’t want predestination debated or preached because he was trying to “hide” his views. (He even played the Manichaean, Gnostic and Stoic card at the one hour and six minute mark, which was par for the course in regards to his need to slander Augustine and all his spiritual heirs, including Luther.)

Contrary to what Flowers wanted to claim, Luther was no Calvinist given he held to 1) God wants all to be saved earnestly with His divine grace given in Word and Sacrament, 2) Christ died for all, and saving grace given in Word and Sacrament can be resisted whether to convert or preserve in the faith (though God will ultimately keep His elect).

As shown above, one can hold to total depravity and still not hold to God’s saving grace works inwardly only on the elect and Christ died only for the elect. Flowers inadvertently disproved his claim when he mentioned Wesleyans/Arminians affirmed prevenient grace. Besides the fact Luther (who was no Arminian) holding to total depravity was no proof that he was a Calvinist, he also didn’t hold to predestination the same way Calvinists did regardless of what Flowers wanted to claim.

To be sure, he agreed with Calvinists that God’s divine choice of us is not based on anything He foresaw in us, not even our faith, but is cause of being given faith and being preserved in that faith. Where he differed from Calvinists, however, was that he refused to speculate into such hidden decrees in regards to thinking that meant God actively or passively passes over others, who aren’t elect, so that they won’t get saving grace and be lost eternally. 

Flowers claimed that Luther, based on  affirming such mentioned views of total depravity and unconditional election (or election not conditional on what God foresees we will do), agreed with the Calvinist understanding of reprobation (which involved God withholding effectual saving grace from those who aren’t chosen, but taught we should not talk about. That’s where the slanderous and repeated charges of Luther wanting to hide his alleged views of God wanting to save all comes in.

But is that true? Take 1 Timothy 2:4. The only time that Luther ever saw that text as teaching God only wants to save all the elect, not everyone, came in his Romans commentary, two years before he wrote the 95 theses and was a Reformer.

In regards to his famous Bondage of the Will, written in 1525 as a response to Catholic humanist Erasmus, when he examined texts like 1 Timothy 2:4, John 1:29 Matthew 23:37, and Ezekiel 18:23, he landed on the side of God wanting to save all as His revealed gracious will. In fact he argued for especially universal atonement with the premise of universality of sin that bound the will of all.

Luther wrote in Bondage of the Will, quoting John 1:29 to start:

"If, therefore, Christ be the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, it follows, that the whole world is under sin, damnation, and the devil. Hence your distinction between the principal parts, and the parts not principal, profits you nothing: for the world, signifies men, savouring of nothing but the things of the world, throughout all their faculties."

That puts the lie to Flowers’ claim that Luther held to Christ didn’t die for those not chosen so that God could carry out His desire to doom them for eternity for His glory and and more so to the claim that Luther wanted to hide such beliefs (that he didn’t even affirmed).

An overview of Luther’s sermons will also disproved Flowers’ claim there as well:

"For, as already stated, this is the sin of all sins, that when God is gracious and wants all our sins forgiven, man by his unbelief rejects God's truth and grace, and casts it away from him, and will not let the death and resurrection of Christ the Lord avail." (Luther's Third Sermon on Mark 16:1-8 (Easter Sunday)

"The teaching and preaching of the Gospel is nothing else than that Christ is the Son of God, sent by the Father as a sacrifice and ransom for the sin of the world, by his own blood, that he might appease the wrath of God and effect reconciliation for us, redeeming us from sin and death and securing for us righteousness and everlasting life. It must follow, then that no one, by his own work and holiness can atone for his sins or appease the wrath of God, and there is no other way to attain the grace of God and eternal life than by the faith which thus apprehends Christ." (Luther’s Sermon on John 15:26-16:4, Sunday After Christ's Ascension):

"It is Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. He, and no one else either in heaven or on earth takes our sins upon himself. You yourself could not pay for the smallest of sins. He alone must take upon himself not alone your sins, but the sins of the world, and not some sins, but all the sins of the world, be they great or small, many or few" (Luther’s Sermon on John 1:19-28, 4th Sunday in Advent)

Not to mention Luther wrote in his Galatians commentary chapter 3:

“Our merciful Father in heaven saw how the Law oppressed us and how impossible it was for us to get out from under the curse of the Law. He therefore sent His only Son into the world and said to Him: "You are now Peter, the liar; Paul, the persecutor; David, the adulterer; Adam, the disobedient; the thief on the cross. You, My Son, must pay the world's iniquity." The Law growls: "All right. If Your Son is taking the sin of the world, I see no sins anywhere else but in Him. He shall die on the Cross." And the Law kills Christ. But we go free.

“The argument of the Apostle against the righteousness of the Law is impregnable. If Christ bears our sins, we do not bear them. But if Christ is innocent of our sins and does not bear them, we must bear them, and we shall die in our sins. ‘But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.’”

“Let us see how Christ was able to gain the victory over our enemies. The sins of the whole world, past, present, and future, fastened themselves upon Christ and condemned Him. But because Christ is God He had an everlasting and unconquerable righteousness. 

“These two, the sin of the world and the righteousness of God, met in a death struggle. Furiously the sin of the world assailed the righteousness of God. 

“Righteousness is immortal and invincible. On the other hand, sin is a mighty tyrant who subdues all men. This tyrant pounces on Christ. But Christ's righteousness is unconquerable. The result is inevitable. Sin is defeated and righteousness triumphs and reigns forever.”

And in chapter 5 of that commentary, he added that what Christ won for us at the cross can be refused or lost due to unbelief or final apostasy:

“To fall from grace means to lose the atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the righteousness, liberty, and life which Jesus has merited for us by His death and resurrection. To lose the grace of God means to gain the wrath and judgment of God, death, the bondage of the devil, and everlasting condemnation.”

In regards to his view of God’s universal desire to save in regards to the passages, 1 Timothy 2:4, Matthew 23:37, and Ezekiel 18:23, Luther wrote in Bondage:

“Therefore it is rightly said, 'if God does not desire our death, it is to be laid to the charge of our own will, if we perish:' this, I say, is right, if you speak of GOD PREACHED. For He desires that all men should be saved, seeing that, He comes unto all by the word of salvation, and it is the fault of the will which does not receive Him: as He saith. (Matt. xxiii. 37.) ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not!’ But WHY that Majesty does not take away or change this fault of the will IN ALL, seeing that, it is not in the power of man to do it; or why He lays that to the charge of the will, which the man cannot avoid, it becomes us not to inquire, and though you should inquire much, yet you will never find out: as Paul saith, (Rom. ix, 20,) ‘Who art thou that repliest against God!’”

Note that Luther stated himself that God wants all to be saved and God comes to all with His word of salvation. In Luther’s view, which early on he stated in Bondage, Word and Spirit cannot be divorced from each other, and God works through the outward Word (as in word preached and sacrament) as outward means He reaches us with the Gospel. There was no outward (for all) and inward grace (for the elect) distinction, that existed in Calvinist theology, in Luther’s system.

Furthermore, when Luther spoke of the distinction between the hidden will, that elects or reprobates, and revealed will, he was not arguing for two wills of God, as if the revealed will means God outwardly commands all to be saved, and the hidden will means God wants to save only some and gives saving grace only to the chosen so His that it can never be resisted, contrary to what Flowers claimed of his views at the one hour and thirty-six minute mark

What Luther was saying was in regards to God’s hidden will, it refers to speculations as to why some are saved and some are not, of which he said is none of our business and we are forbidden to inquire into. We are not to figure out what even occurs with God choosing us in regards to eternal decrees (since they are hidden from us and such speculations treat it as outside of Christ), but to treat predestination as in Christ, for our assurance, that our salvation is in God’s hands, not based on what we do or how “good” we are (in fact, Luther’s primary point isn’t predestination but about law and gospel distinction must be kept).

That’s not Luther trying to hide his views as Flowers slanderously and falsely accused him of (which complaining throughout the video that Reeves framed the issues in ways that weren’t fair to Flowers’ views that weren’t even involved back in the Reformation days between Reformers and Rome). In fact, Luther feared these predestination debates would lead to views such as denying God wants all to be saved. Luther didn’t need to hide holding to the view God decided not to save some by withholding atonement and grace from them, since he didn’t hold to such views, not even in Bondage.

For Luther, there remains one saving will: the universal.

A few paragraphs later in Bondage, he added his take on Matthew 23:37, affirming God’s saving will can be resisted:

“Nor do I suppose that any one will cavillingly deny, that that will which here saith, "How often would I!" was displayed to the Jews, even before God became Incarnate; seeing that, they are accused of having slain the prophets, before Christ, and having thus resisted His will. For it is well known among Christians, that all things were done by the prophets in the name of Christ to come, who was promised that He should become Incarnate: so that, whatever has been offered unto men by the ministers of the word from the foundation of the world, may be rightly called, the Will of Christ.”

That isn’t to say Luther was Arminian. While he shared with Arminians the view of God’s universal atonement and desire to save to all that can be resisted, he shared with Calvinist view that salvation is all of God (hence his view of conversion is monergistic, or God alone converts us). He refused to compromise on either set of beliefs (monergism/election and universal grace) despite them seeming to be paradoxical to others. His answer in Bondage to the question as to why not all are saved if God alone converts the bound will and if God wants all to be saved is not for us to know since God never revealed that to us (hidden will).

Luther was consistent through the course of his life in affirming God’s earnest universal desire to save. He wrote in a letter on July 20, 1528:

“Although God Almighty knows all things, and all works and thoughts in all creatures must come to pass according to His will (iuxta decretum voluntatis suae), it is nevertheless His earnest will and purpose, aye, His command, decreed from eternity, to save all men and make them partakers of eternal joy, as is clearly stated Ezek. 18, 23, where He says: God does not desire the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn and live.Now, if He desires to save and to have saved the sinners who live and move under the wide and high heaven, then you must not separate yourself from the grace of God by your foolish thoughts, inspired by the devil. For God's grace extends and stretches from east to west from south to north, overshadowing all who turn, truly repent, and make themselves partakers of His mercy and desire help. For He is 'rich unto all that call upon Him,'Rom. 10, 12. This, however requires true and genuine faith, which expels such faint-heartedness and despair and is our righteousness, as it is written Rom. 3, 22: 'the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all.' Mark these words, in omnes, super omnes (unto all, upon all), whether you also belong to them, and are one of those who lie and grovel under the banner of the sinners." "Think also as constantly and earnestly of salvation as you [now] do of damnation, and comfort yourself with God's Word, which is true and everlasting, then such ill winds will cease and pass entirely."

Or consider his outright condemnations of the idea that God wants to give effectual saving grace only  to the chosen elect in his sermon in 1533 (same sermon he affirmed God elects through means):

“Some conceive other thoughts, explaining the words thus: 'Many are called', i.e., God offers His grace to many, but few are chosen, i.e.,He imparts such grace to only a few; for only a few are saved. This is an altogether wicked explanation.For how is it possible for one who holds and believes nothing else of God not to be an enemy of God, whose will alone must be blamed for the fact that not all of us are saved? Contrast this opinion with the one that is formed when a man first learns to know the Lord Christ, and it will be found to be nothing but devilish blasphemy.”

Later on in the sermon, he added: “This makes good Christians, whereas those who think that God begrudges salvation to any one either become reckless or secure, wicked people, who live like brutes, thinking: It has already been ordained whether I am to be saved or not; why, then, should I stint myself anything? To think thus is wrong; for you are commanded to hear God's Word and to believe Christ to be your Savior, who has paid for your sin.”

Luther stated similarly in Genesis commentary:

“For what end did it serve to send His Son to suffer and to be crucified for us? Of what use was it to institute the sacraments if they are uncertain or completely useless for our salvation? For otherwise, if someone had been predestined, he would have been saved without the Son and without the sacraments or Holy Scripture. Consequently, God, according to the blasphemy of these people, was horribly foolish when He sent His Son, promulgated the Law and the Gospel, and sent the apostles if the only thing He wanted was that we should be uncertain and in doubt whether we are to be saved or really to be damned.”

When Reeves made reference to that, he tried to claim that Luther wasn’t refuting Calvinism or Calvinist like views (of God’s saving grace not intended to give faith effectually to all), but his practical concerns with it, he was wrong. Luther encountered similar views in 1533 even before Calvin and railed against such views using similar phrasing. In fact, his concerns on the practical side was that dwelling into predestination thoughts could lead to holding to God doesn’t want to save all. Flowers exploited what Reeves said to accuse Luther falsely of holding to God wants many not be atoned for and saved so they could be damned for eternity for God’s glory and of trying to hide his beliefs.

Contrary to Flowers’ slanders, Luther opposed predestination focus and debates was because he didn’t want to turn what was written for the comfort of the believer (when we think of predestination as us in Christ, as revealed to us in Word and Sacrament, not speculate into it, as eternal decrees as outside of Christ) into drawing false conclusions such as God doesn’t earnestly desire to save all or we have a role in our salvation (either view to Luther would be hindrance towards assurance). For Luther, while grace was effectual to give faith, not dependent on us, it worked on all and can be resisted. He wasn’t hiding views he didn’t even hold to! Flowers put those views in Luther’s mouth.

Nor was Luther holding to Calvinism but preached and practiced like Arminian as Flowers asserted. No, Luther held to his Lutheran beliefs and preached and practiced such beliefs, distinguished from Calvinism, Arminian, and Flowers’ Provisionist camps.

Let us close with these words of wisdom from Luther:

“A dispute about predestination should be avoided entirely... I forget everything about Christ and God when I come upon these thoughts and actually get to the point to imagining that God is a rogue. We must stay in the word, in which God is revealed to us and salvation is offered, if we believe him. But in thinking about predestination, we forget God . . However, in Christ are hid all the treasures (Col. 2:3); outside him all are locked up. Therefore, we should simply refuse to argue about election.

“Such a disputation is so very displeasing to God that he has instituted Baptism, the spoken Word, and the Lord’s Supper to counteract the temptation to engage in it. In these, let us persist and constantly say., I am baptized I believe in Jesus. I care nothing about the disputation concerning predestination.”

Here we stand.

Response to Leighton Flowers video on Luther vs Calvin, part 2: refuting a caricature of Lutheranism on election, freewill and saving grace

This is the second part of the response to Leighton Flowers video in regards to Luther vs Calvin (two Reformers who carried forth two different stream of Augustinian predestination thoughts). The first part is a defense of Augustine found here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/response-to-leighton-flowers-video-on.html?m=1

Flowers’ video can be found here:

https://youtu.be/pZrTO88WmDg

This second part is a response to Flowers’ caricatures of Lutheranism on the subject.

At about the 29:24 mark, Leighton Flowers claim Lutherans hold to God predestine to be saved and leave the rest to be lost. That kind of give a hint of the kind of caricatures he would continually throw at Luther especially in the last half of the video (to be dealt with in the next blog posts).

What Lutherans hold to while God choosing and predestinating is effectual cause of our salvation by grace through faith, we are not allowed to go beyond what Scriptures say to draw speculations or conclusions. So while Scriptures say Christ chose us, not we choose Him, Scriptures also say God wants all to be saved. God didn’t just choose to leave the rest to be lost but earnestly desire to save them as well.

In the Lutheran Confessions, the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord article XI affirmed election is cause of our salvation here:

“5] The eternal election of God, however, vel praedestinatio (or predestination), that is, God's ordination to salvation, does not extend at once over the godly and the wicked, but only over the children of God, who were elected and ordained to eternal life before the foundation of the world was laid, as Paul says, Eph. 1:4. 5: He hath chosen us in Him, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ.

“8] The eternal election of God, however, not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also, from the gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which procures, works, helps, and promotes our salvation and what pertains thereto; and upon this [divine predestination] our salvation is so founded that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, Matt. 16:18, as is written John 10:28: Neither shall any man pluck My sheep out of My hand. And again, Acts 13:48: And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.”

However, the idea God elected people as some kind of muster where He picked this person to be saved and that person to be lost was rejected:

 “9] Nor is this eternal election or ordination of God to eternal life to be considered in God's secret, inscrutable counsel in such a bare manner as though it comprised nothing further, or as though nothing more belonged to it, and nothing more were to be considered in it, than that God foresaw who and how many were to be saved, who and how many were to be damned, or that He only held a [sort of military] muster, thus: ‘This one shall be saved, that one shall be damned; this one shall remain steadfast [in faith to the end], that one shall not remain steadfast.’”

In the Lutheran view, predestination or election passages are written for our assurance, not for us to speculate into hidden decrees, as to think the reason why some are lost is because God withhold salvation from them:

“52] But a distinction must be observed with especial care between that which is expressly revealed concerning it in God's Word, and what is not revealed. For, in addition to what has been revealed in Christ concerning this, of which we have hitherto spoken, God has still kept secret and concealed much concerning this mystery, and reserved it for His wisdom and knowledge alone, which we should not investigate, nor should we indulge our thoughts in this matter, nor draw conclusions, nor inquire curiously, but should adhere [entirely] to the revealed Word [of God]. This admonition is most urgently needed.

“53] For our curiosity has always much more pleasure in concerning itself with these matters [with investigating those things which are hidden and abstruse] than with what God has revealed to us concerning this in His Word, because we cannot harmonize it, which, moreover, we have not been commanded to do [since certain things occur in this mystery so intricate and involved that we are not able by the penetration of our natural ability to harmonize them; but this has not been demanded of us by God].

“54] Thus there is no doubt that God most exactly and certainly foresaw before the time of the world, and still knows, which of those that are called will believe or will not believe; also which of the converted will persevere [in faith] and which will not persevere; which will return after a fall [into grievous sins], and which will fall into obduracy [will perish in their sins]. So, too, the number, how many there are of these on either side, is beyond all doubt perfectly known to God. 55] However, since God has reserved this mystery for His wisdom, and has revealed nothing to us concerning it in His Word, much less commanded us to investigate it with our thoughts, but has earnestly discouraged us therefrom, Rom. 11:33ff , we should not reason in our thoughts, draw conclusions, nor inquire curiously into these matters, but should adhere to His revealed Word, to which He points us.

“70] Therefore, whoever would be saved should not trouble or harass himself with thoughts concerning the secret counsel of God, as to whether he also is elected and ordained to eternal life, with which miserable Satan usually attacks and annoys godly hearts. But they should hear Christ [and look upon Him as the Book of Life in which is written the eternal election], who is the Book of Life and of God's eternal election of all of God's children to eternal life: He testifies to all men without distinction that it is God's will that all men should come to Him who labor and are heavy laden with sin, in order that He may give them rest and save them, Matt. 11:28”

Indeed, denials of God not wanting to earnestly to save all are rejected:

“41] For few receive the Word and follow it; the greatest number despise the Word, and will not come to the wedding, Matt. 22:3ff The cause for this contempt for the Word is not God's foreknowledge [or predestination], but the perverse will of man, which rejects or perverts the means and instrument of the Holy Ghost, which God offers him through the call, and resists the Holy Ghost, who wishes to be efficacious, and works through the Word, as Christ says: How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not! Matt. 23:37.

“42] Thus many receive the Word with joy, but afterwards fall away again, Luke 8:13. But the cause is not as though God were unwilling to grant grace for perseverance to those in whom He has begun the good work, for that is contrary to St. Paul, Phil. 1:6; but the cause is that they wilfully turn away again from the holy commandment [of God], grieve and embitter the Holy Ghost, implicate themselves again in the filth of the world, and garnish again the habitation of the heart for the devil. With them the last state is worse than the first, 2 Pet. 2:10. 20; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 10:26; Luke 11:25.”

For the Lutheran, election is to looked at in Christ given unto us in Word and Sacrament, not outside of Christ (which is what takes place when speculations are made with what takes place with election in eternity, leading to either denials of universal saving grace or denials of monergism, or salvation is all of God):

“65] Accordingly, this eternal election of God is to be considered in Christ, and not outside of or without Christ. For in Christ, the Apostle Paul testifies, Eph. 1:4f , He hath chosen us before the foundation of the world, as it is written: He hath made us accepted in the Beloved. This election, however, is revealed from heaven through the preaching of His Word, when the Father says, Matt. 17:6: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him. And Christ says, Matt. 11:28: Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. And concerning the Holy Ghost Christ says, John 16:14: He shalt glorify Me; for He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you. 66] Thus the entire Holy Trinity, God Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, directs all men to Christ, as to the Book of Life, in whom they should seek the eternal election of the Father. For this has been decided by the Father from eternity, that whom He would save He would save through Christ, as He [Christ] Himself says, John 14:6: No man cometh unto the Father but by Me. And again, John 10:9: I am the Door; by Me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved.

“67] However, Christ, as the only-begotten Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father, has announced to us the will of the Father, and thus also our eternal election to eternal life, namely, when He says, Mark 1:15: Repent ye, and believe the Gospel; the kingdom of God is at hand. Likewise He says, John 6:40: This is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life. And again [John 3:16]: God so loved the world, etc. [that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life].”

For the Lutheran, false views of election can undermine our assurance. One such view is there is something in us that God finds in us as cause of Him choosing us:

“87] By this doctrine and explanation of the eternal and saving choice [predestination] of the elect children of God His own glory is entirely and fully given to God, that in Christ He saves us out of pure [and free] mercy, without any merits or good works of ours, according to the purpose of His will, as it is written Eph. 1:5f : Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved. 88] Therefore it is false and wrong [conflicts with the Word of God] when it is taught that not alone the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, but that also in us there is a cause of God's election, on account of which God has chosen us to eternal life. For not only before we had done anything good, but also before we were born, yea, even before the foundations of the world were laid, He elected us in Christ; and that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger; as it is written concerning this matter, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, Rom. 9:11ff.; Gen. 25:23; Mal. 1:2f.”

The other false view as pointed out is the denials of God wanting to save all:

“89] Moreover, this doctrine gives no one a cause either for despondency or for a shameless, dissolute life, namely, when men are taught that they must seek eternal election in Christ and His holy Gospel, as in the Book of Life, which excludes no penitent sinner, but beckons and calls all the poor, heavy-laden, and troubled sinners [who are disturbed by the sense of God's wrath], to repentance and the knowledge of their sins and to faith in Christ, and promises the Holy Ghost for purification and renewal, 90] and thus gives the most enduring consolation to all troubled, afflicted men, that they know that their salvation is not placed in their own hands,-for otherwise they would lose it much more easily than was the case with Adam and Eve in paradise, yea, every hour and moment,-but in the gracious election of God, which He has revealed to us in Christ, out of whose hand no man shall pluck us, John 10:28; 2 Tim. 2:19.

“91] Accordingly, if any one presents the doctrine concerning the gracious election of God in such a manner that troubled Christians cannot derive comfort from it, but are thereby incited to despair, or that the impenitent are confirmed in their wantonness, it is undoubtedly sure and true that such a doctrine is taught, not according to the Word and will of God, but according to [the blind judgment of human] reason and the instigation of the devil.

“92] For, as the apostle testifies, Rom. 15:4: Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. But when this consolation and hope are weakened or entirely removed by Scripture, it is certain that it is understood and explained contrary to the will and meaning of the Holy Ghost.

“93] By this simple, correct [clear], useful explanation which has a firm and good foundation in God's revealed will, we abide; we flee from, and shun, all lofty, acute questions and disputations [useless for edifying]; and reject and condemn whatever is contrary to these simple, useful explanations.”

Likewise, this paradox of salvation is all of God (divine election is cause of our salvation from start to finish and faith is gift of God) and damnation is all of man whom God wants to be saved can be found in Article II on freewill.

In regards to salvation being all of God, it reads:

“11] Now, just as a man who is physically dead cannot of his own powers prepare or adapt himself to obtain temporal life again, so the man who is spiritually dead in sins cannot of his own strength adapt or apply himself to the acquisition of spiritual and heavenly righteousness and life, unless he is delivered and quickened by the Son of God from the death of sin.

“25] Thirdly, in this manner, too, the Holy Scriptures ascribe conversion, faith in Christ, regeneration, renewal, and all that belongs to their efficacious beginning and completion, not to the human powers of the natural free will, neither entirely nor half, nor in any, even the least or most inconsiderable part, but in solidum, that is, entirely, solely, to the divine working and the Holy Ghost, as also the Apology teaches.”

Universal grace and atonement were affirmed here as well:

“49] It is not God's will that any one should be damned [perish], but that all men should be converted to Him and be saved eternally. Ezek. 33:11: As I live, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. John 3:16: For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

“50] Therefore God, out of His immense goodness and mercy, has His divine eternal Law and His wonderful plan concerning our redemption, namely, the holy, alone-saving Gospel of His eternal Son, our only Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, publicly preached; and by this [preaching] collects an eternal Church for Himself from the human race, and works in the hearts of men true repentance and knowledge of sins, and true faith in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. And by this means, and in no other way, namely, through His holy Word, when men hear it preached or read it, and the holy Sacraments when they are used according to His Word, God desires to call men to eternal salvation, draw them to Himself, and convert, regenerate, and sanctify them. 51] 1 Cor. 1:21: For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Acts 10:5. 6: Peter shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. Rom. 10:17: Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. John 17:17. 20: Sanctify them by Thy truth; Thy Word is truth, etc. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their Word. Therefore the eternal Father calls down from heaven concerning His dear Son and concerning all who preach repentance and forgiveness of sins in His name: Hear ye Him, Matt. 17:5.

“52] Now, all who wish to be saved ought to hear this preaching [of God's Word]. For the preaching and hearing of God's Word are instruments of the Holy Ghost, by, with, and through which He desires to work efficaciously, and to convert men to God, and to work in them both to will and to do.”

For the Lutheran, true assurance can only come 1) if salvation doesn’t depend on us (think law and gospel distinction here), but all of God to give us faith and keep us in that faith in the gospel promises given us in Christ through outward means of Word and Sacrament (think salvation lies outside ourselves hence justification by faith alone and imputed righteousness) and 2) if we are given certainty God desires to save all (what’s true for all, as in God’s desire to save, becomes true for all).

We read again in article XI:

“13] Therefore, if we wish to think or speak correctly and profitably concerning eternal election, or the predestination and ordination of the children of God to eternal life, we should accustom ourselves not to speculate concerning the bare, secret, concealed, inscrutable foreknowledge of God, but how the counsel, purpose, and ordination of God in Christ Jesus, who is the true Book of Life, is revealed to us through the Word, 14] namely, that the entire doctrine concerning the purpose, counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to our redemption, call, justification, and salvation should be taken together; as Paul treats and has explained this article Rom. 8:29f ; Eph. 1:4f , as also Christ in the parable, Matt. 22:1ff , namely, that God in His purpose and counsel ordained [decreed]:

“15] 1. That the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ, who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life.

“16] 2. That such merit and benefits of Christ shall be presented, offered, and distributed to us through His Word and Sacraments.

“17] 3. That by His Holy Ghost, through the Word, when it is preached, heard, and pondered, He will be efficacious and active in us, convert hearts to true repentance, and preserve them in the true faith.

“18] 4. That He will justify all those who in true repentance receive Christ by a true faith, and will receive them into grace, the adoption of sons, and the inheritance of eternal life.

“19] 5. That He will also sanctify in love those who are thus justified, as St. Paul says, Eph. 1:4.

“20] 6. That He also will protect them in their great weakness against the devil, the world, and the flesh, and rule and lead them in His ways, raise them again [place His hand beneath them], when they stumble, comfort them under the cross and in temptation, and preserve them [for life eternal].

“21] 7. That He will also strengthen, increase, and support to the end the good work which He has begun in them, if they adhere to God's Word, pray diligently, abide in God's goodness [grace], and faithfully use the gifts received.

“22] 8. That finally He will eternally save and glorify in life eternal those whom He has elected, called, and justified.

“23] And [indeed] in this His counsel, purpose, and ordination God has prepared salvation not only in general, but has in grace considered and chosen to salvation each and every person of the elect who are to be saved through Christ, also ordained that in the way just mentioned He will, by His grace, gifts, and efficacy, bring them thereto [make them participants of eternal salvation], aid, promote, strengthen, and preserve them.

“24] All this, according to the Scriptures, is comprised in the doctrine concerning the eternal election of God to adoption and eternal salvation, and is to be understood by it, and never excluded nor omitted, when we speak of God's purpose, predestination, election, and ordination to salvation. And when our thoughts concerning this article are thus formed according to the Scriptures, we can by God's grace simply [and correctly] adapt ourselves to it [and advantageously treat of it].

“25] This also belongs to the further explanation and salutary use of the doctrine concerning God's foreknowledge [predestination] to salvation: Since only the elect, whose names are written in the book of life, are saved, how, we can know, whence and whereby we can perceive who are the elect that can and should receive this doctrine for comfort.

26] And of this we should not judge according to our reason, nor according to the Law or from any external appearance. Neither should we attempt to investigate the secret, concealed abyss of divine predestination, but should give heed to the revealed will of God. For He has made known unto us the mystery of His will, and made it manifest through Christ that it might be preached, Eph. 1:9ff ; 2 Tim. 1:9f.

“27] This, however, is revealed to us in the manner as Paul says, Rom. 8:29f : Whom God predestinated, elected, and foreordained, He also called. Now, God does not call without means, but through the Word, as He has commanded repentance and remission of sins to be preached in His name, Luke 24:47. St. Paul also testifies to like effect when he writes: We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, Be ye reconciled to God. 2 Cor. 5:20. And the guests whom the King will have at the wedding of His Son He calls through His ministers sent forth, Matt. 22:2ff , some at the first and some at the second, third, sixth, ninth, and even at the eleventh hour, Matt. 20:3ff

“28] Therefore, if we wish to consider our eternal election to salvation with profit, we must in every way hold sturdily and firmly to this, that, as the preaching of repentance, so also the promise of the Gospel is universalis (universal), that is, it pertains to all men, Luke 24:47. For this reason Christ has commanded that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations. For God loved the world and gave His Son, John 3:16. Christ bore the sins of the world, John 1:29, gave His flesh for the life of the world, John 6:51; His blood is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 1:7; 2:2. Christ says: Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest, Matt. 11:28. God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all, Rom. 11:32. The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3:9. The same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him, Rom. 10:12. The righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe, Rom. 3:22. This is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life, John 6:40. Likewise it is Christ's command that to all in common to whom repentance is preached this promise of the Gospel also should be offered Luke 24:47; Mark 16:15.”

Here we stand.

Response to Leighton Flowers video on Luther vs Calvin, part 1: using and abusing Chrysostom and other fathers to slime Augustine

Leighton Flowers recently did a two hour response to Ryan Reeves’ lectures on Luther vs Calvin here:

https://youtu.be/pZrTO88WmDg

Rather than address all that he said in one post, the responses will come in different parts.

This part will deal with his claim to fathers like Chrysostom.

At around the 17:25 mark of his video, Flowers appealed to Chrysostom for support for his Provisionist views. Later in the video, he claimed Ken Wilson’s dissertation proved his claims that his Provisionist views were what the fathers such as Chrysostom taught.

Since Flowers and the Provisionist camp have Wilson as their chief propagandist (with the bogus claim pushed by them and Wilson himself that he is “the leading Augustine scholar”), Wilson’s claims, that they used, will also be addressed in regards to Chrysostom.

The go to tactic that the Provisionist crowd (Flowers and Wilson included) loves to play is see how Augustine and Augustinians (they always conflate them with Calvinists it seem when the two aren’t the same on all the issues related to the five points of Calvinism) interpret passages just like the Manichaeans and Gnosticics (massively disingenuous coming from them since their view of John 3:5 water as physical birth sided with Gnostics then against baptismal view of the text of all the fathers, including Augustine, as an example). 

An example of this is the selective quotation of Chrysostom’s Homily 46 on John:

“John 6:44 No man can come unto Me, except the Father which has sent Me draw Him.

“The Manichæans spring upon these words, saying, that nothing lies in our own power; yet the expression shows that we are masters of our will.”

An example of this is here used to slam Augustine as having the same understanding as the Manichaeans of John 6:44 based on his Manichaean past:

https://www.facebook.com/1711193079106027/posts/3357681707790481/?extid=nJjCvllnbZCdiPTs&d=n

Ken Wilson on page 257 of his Augustine’s Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to “Non-free Free Will”wrote : 

“Victorinus, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Cassian, Chrysostom, and others all acknowledged the commonplace of God gifting grace and faith, i.e., salvation did not come through human ‘will’ (cf. John 1.12-13) but by God’s grace. While some accepted the purely philosophical view of ‘the will’ as a part of the anima, none of these Christian leaders acknowledged Epictetus’ ‘evil will/willer.’ By declaring that his uses of Phil 2.13 and Eph 2.8-10 (mistranslation and reinterpretation) proved his initum fidei as God’s gift, Augustine divorced himself (and his followers) from the regula fidei of three centuries. Regarding Christians, he stood alone. Pagans, Gnostics, and Manichaeans agreed with him.”

Augustine stood alone? 

Jerome cited John 6:44 (“no one can come unto Me”) in Against the Pelagians Book III in a very Augustinian way (“shatters the pride of freewill”):

“Just as the vine branches and shoots immediately decay when they are severed from the parent stem, so all the strength of men fades and perishes, if it be bereft of the help of God. No one, He says, can come unto Me except the Father Who sent Me draw him. When He says, No one can come unto Me, He shatters the pride of free will; because, even if a man will to go to Christ, except that be realized which follows — unless My heavenly Father draw him— desire is to no purpose, and effort is in vain. At the same time it is to be noted that he who is drawn does not run freely, but is led along either because he holds back and is sluggish, or because he is reluctant to go.”

And in context, when read (even if read as a Synergist) Chrysostom took a closer view of John 6:44 to Augustine or Jerome than Flowers or Wilson. The Provisionist camp loves to quote that statement from Chrysostom posted above but completely ignored the next statements from him:

“For if a man comes to Him, says some one, what need is there of drawing? But the words do not take away our free will, but show that we greatly need assistance. And He implies not an unwilling comer, but one enjoying much succor.”

There, you have it. Chrysostom, while affirming man has freewill, insisted he still needed divine assistance. Lest Provisionist folks say the late Augustine denied man has freewill and denied God’s grace assists freewill of man (based on their need to caricature his views as God forcing people to believe against their wills), the bishop of Hippo wrote in his later writing On Grace and Freewill in 426 AD (four years prior to his death):

“Now He has revealed to us, through His Holy Scriptures, that there is in a man a free choice of will. But how He has revealed this I do not recount in human language, but in divine. There is, to begin with, the fact that God's precepts themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice of will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised rewards”(chapter 2).

“What is the import of the fact that in so many passages God requires all His commandments to be kept and fulfilled? How does He make this requisition, if there is no free will?”(chapter 4)

Augustine stated freewill needed divine assistance in order to have faith multiple times in this writing:

“Therefore, my dearly beloved, as we have now proved by our former testimonies from Holy Scripture that there is in man a free determination of will for living rightly and acting rightly; so now let us see what are the divine testimonies concerning the grace of God, without which we are not able to do any good thing”(chapter 7) 

“Now they to whom this is not given either are unwilling or do not fulfil what they will; whereas they to whom it is given so will as to accomplish what they will. In order, therefore, that this saying, which is not received by all men, may yet be received by some, there are both the gift of God and free will”(also in chapter 7)

“It follows, then, that the victory in which sin is vanquished is nothing else than the gift of God, who in this contest helps free will”(chapter 8)

“Now I strongly advise and earnestly require your Love to read attentively the book of the blessed Cyprian which he wrote On the Lord's Prayer. As far as the Lord shall assist you, understand it, and commit it to memory. In this work you will see how he so appeals to the free will of those whom he edifies in his treatise, as to show them, that whatever they have to fulfil in the law, they must ask for in the prayer. But this, of course, would be utterly empty if the human will were sufficient for the performance without the help of God”(chapter 26)

“And thus, indeed, he receives assistance to perform what he is commanded. Then is the will of use when we have ability; just as ability is also then of use when we have the will. For what does it profit us if we will what we are unable to do, or else do not will what we are able to do?”(chapter 31)

In other words, if later Augustine’s views of grace and freewill were Manichaean, then so were Chrysostom and especially later Jerome.

Now, Flowers and his Provisionist love to obfuscate and claim they hold to divine grace is needed prior to man having faith to claim (falsely) that they disagreed with semi-Pelagians. But in order to do so, they have to redefine terms to where divine grace simply means divine revelation of what Christ did without God working on the will to move it towards Him. (It’s why they reject prevenient grace.). But such redefinition isn’t even denied by semi-Pelagians or even Pelagians (even both would agree that one needs to hear the word of God as “grace” before one makes a free choice).

And that’s where they aren’t in agreement with Chrysostom’s homilies on John. Chrysostom did say on John 6:45:

“Do you see the dignity of faith, and that not of men nor by man, but by God Himself they shall learn this?”

Earlier in homily 45, on John 6:37, the golden-mouthed Preacher had this to say:

“And in this place, by the which the Father gives Me, He declares nothing else than that the believing on Me is no ordinary thing, nor one that comes of human reasonings, but needs a revelation from above, and a well-ordered soul to receive that revelation.”

Contrary to Flowers’ view of grace being revelation without God working on the will to give faith as a gift, Chrysostom held to faith is a gift of God such that he said while faith is exercise of human freewill, faith being given as a gift of God involves freewill being “canceled”. Here’s what the bishop of Constantinople wrote in his homily 4 on Ephesians:

“Ver. 8. For by grace, says he have you been saved.

“In order then that the greatness of the benefits bestowed may not raise you too high, observe how he brings you down: by grace you have been saved, says he,

“Through faith;

“Then, that, on the other hand, our free-will be not impaired, he adds also our part in the work, and yet again cancels it, and adds,

“And that not of ourselves.

“Neither is faith, he means, of ourselves. Because had He not come, had He not called us, how had we been able to believe? For how, says he, shall they believe, unless they hear? So that the work of faith itself is not our own.”

Flowers and Provisionists will point out that Chrysostom said faith is a gift of God only as opportunity to receive offer of the gospel preached. But that doesn’t negate Chrysostom using the language of 1) faith is a gift of God, 2) faith is not of ourselves, 3) that work of faith is not our own and  4) freewill is “canceled” in regards to God giving us faith though once given, freewill exercises faith.

That isn’t different from what Augustine wrote in his writing:

“His last clause runs thus: I have kept the faith. But he who says this is the same who declares in another passage, I have obtained mercy that I might be faithful. He does not say, I obtained mercy because I was faithful, but in order that I might be faithful, thus showing that even faith itself cannot be had without God's mercy, and that it is the gift of God. This he very expressly teaches us when he says, For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. They might possibly say, We received grace because we believed; as if they would attribute the faith to themselves, and the grace to God. Therefore, the apostle having said, You are saved through faith, added, And that not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God.”

No matter how Flowers and Wilson and others in the Provisionist crowd want to spin it, they cannot accuse Augustine of following Manichaeanism (via attempt at guilt by association with seeing faith is gift of God) without also implicating Chrysostom and other fathers (none of whom have a Manichaaean past).

Wilson did make the attempt on pages 208-209 of book:

“Jerome (Comm. Eph.1.2.8-10), Victorinus (Ep. P. Eph.1.2.9), and John Chrysostom (Hom. Hen.12; cf. Hom. Thess.4.1-3)- all contemporaries and all believing traditional free choice- had written on Eph 2.8-10 with God ‘gifting faith,’ in a figurative sense, not Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individual’s Eternal Destinies. With these notable Christians expressing ‘faith as God’s gift’ (meaning opportunity for salvation through free choice and wiling good), Augustine was handed invaluable figurative language. It allowed him not only to honestly assert belief in initial faith as God’s hit in 396 CE, but to later (412) transform the figurative to a literal novel theology of Christianized DUPIED, while claiming he remained within the regula fidei.”

Wilson offered no proof those fathers like Chrysostom and other fathers meant it figuratively when they said faith is a gift of God (it doesn’t fit his narrative aimed at slanderously blackening Augustine’s name). But suppose  they did so. It would still mean they say the text said faith is a gift of God which according to Flowers and Wilson, is the Manichaean view of the text!

"For that reason, he says, he is going to make clear the overflowing riches of his own grace, according to his kindness in abundance in [these present] times, because it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and not by works. And this faith itself is not from yourselves, but from him that called you. This [he] also [says], lest perhaps the secret thought might creep up on us, that if we have not been saved by our own works (per opera nostra), at any rate we have actually been saved by faith, and in this way by a different method we are saved by ourselves. Accordingly, he [Paul], said in addition, and asserted, that even faith is not by our own will but is God’s gift. Not because he would remove free will from humanity, and according to that [statement] of the Apostle to the Romans, ‘it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs; but by the mercy of God’ (Romans 9); the very freedom of will itself has God as its originator, and all things should refer us back to his kindness, seeing that actually he himself has permitted us to will the good. However, all this was for the situation that someone might boast about himself, and that he was in no way saved by God himself."

Note the church father said, “faith itself is not from yourselves” and “even faith is not by our own will but is God’s gift.” Nowhere did he suggest he was being figurative or he really meant faith is a gift of God meant mere opportunity of salvation where one makes free choice on one’s own. He stated “freedom of the will itself has God as its originator” and “he himself has permitted us to will the good.” That’s not inconsistent with later Augustine’s view of freewill still remains in man but must be assisted by God’s saving grace to give faith as a gift. 

Even aside from that, there’s later Jerome’s take on a related verse, John 6:44 referred to earlier here. Note he was siding with Augustine on that against the Pelagians, putting the lie to the claim that none of the fathers agreed with Augustine’s view of initial faith is a gift of God from such passages, and only pagans, Gnostics and Manichaeans sided with Augustine on that view. 

This is not to mention Marius Victorinus’ commentary on Philippians, chapter 1, verse 29:

“It was therefore within his purpose that he gave to us the gift of trusting in him. This was an incomparable gift. It is only by faith in him that we are blessed with so great a reward. We are to believe in such a way as to be ready to suffer for him.”

That’s not any different from what Augustine wrote in chapter 28 of his later writing:

“I have already discussed the point concerning faith, that is, concerning the will of him who believes, even so far as to show that it appertains to grace — so that the apostle did not tell us, I have obtained mercy because I was faithful; but he said, I have obtained mercy in order to be faithful. And there are many other passages of similar import — among them that in which he bids us think soberly, according as God has dealt out to every man the proportion of faith; and that which I have already quoted: By grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; and again another in the same Epistle to the Ephesians: Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ; and to the same effect that passage in which he says, For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake. Both alike are therefore due to the grace of God — the faith of those who believe, and the patience of those who suffer, because the apostle spoke of both as given.”

Those were views those who affirmed prevenient grace (whether of monergistic or synergistic kind) can say. Provisionists such as Flowers and Wilson are not in agreement with these fathers that they wished to pit against Augustine.

As a side note, according to Wilson’s narrative, that Flowers and his Provisionist camp, has been pushing free choice views of the fathers meant denial of infant baptismal regeneration, which according to Wilson, was the invention of Augustine reverting back to Manichaean Gnosticism. And such “invention” of Augustine was central to him going into such “Manichaean Gnostic” views such as faith is a gift of God.

Wilson claimed in his shorter book The Foundations of Augustinian-Calvinism page 78: 

“Fortunatus also quoted Eph. 2:8–9 as definitive proof for initial faith as being God's gift by grace (Fort.16). Augustine objected (Fort.16–17). He never mentioned faith as God's gift when citing Eph. 2:8–9 (e.g., Virginit.41, S.212.1) until after 411 CE.[148] Its first appearance where Augustine defends the Manichaean interpretation occurs in Spir. et litt.56 (412 CE) where he builds upon his work immediately prior (Pecc. mer.). He claims since it is obviously impossible for newborns to have faith or believe (they cannot yet understand to make a choice) then God gives newborns salvation through the parents' faith. He now teaches proxy salvation. The faith of someone else can save you. The critical foundation of infant baptism for salvation in Augustine's novel theology cannot be overstated.”

Wilson (and those who pushed his revisionist garbage) cannot play the Manichaean card on Augustine without implicating the church fathers  before him (such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Origen, even later Tertullian, Augustine’s own mentor Ambrose) as well as the church fathers in his life (such as Chrysostom and Jerome). The fact of the matter is Wilson was trying to rewrite church history to turn pre-Augustine fathers (as well as his contemporaries) into a bunch of age of accountability teachers who denied baptismal salvation and affirmed one cannot be baptized  until one is old enough to make free will choice for faith (he did concede infant baptism was practiced in only two areas, North Africa and Rome but claimed laughably when it suits him that it was done for unknown reasons until Augustine made up “Manichaean Gnostic” reasons and at other times when it suits him, it was done for non-salvation purposes).

If that’s the Provisionist freewill view that Wilson (and the Flowers camp that promotes his propaganda) want to pass the fathers off as holding to, until Augustine came along and pushed his “Manichean Gnostic” views of infant baptismal salvation, then they undermine any claims to the historicity of their faith. 

Wilson’s Manichaean Gnostic claims on infant baptism and baptism in general prior to Augustine are thoroughly dealt with and refuted in prior articles. See:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/07/lead-augustine-scholar-using-and.html

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/06/lead-augustine-scholar-ken-wilson-using.html

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/lead-augustine-scholar-ken-wilson-using.html

 A quote by Chrysostom will suffice here since Flowers specifically appealed to him for support of his Provisionism. He wrote in his Baptismal Catechism:

“Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things!  You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism.  Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten.  It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit.”  

According to what is pushed by Wilson (and the Flowers’ Provisionist camp) that backed him, free choice theology requires denying infants are given salvation, forgiveness of sins, and rebirth in baptism prior to them being old enough to make free choice. Keep in mind, Wilson played the Manichean Gnostic card on infant baptismal salvation. So can’t play that card without implicating Chrysostom regardless of how that father’s view of original sin may have differed from Augustine.

And their camp can’t hide behind the Augustinian original sin is Manichaean in regards to infant baptismal salvation without also implicating fathers like Jerome (and Cyprian whom he cited). Jerome wrote in Against the Pelagians Book III:

“One thing I will say and so end my discourse, that you ought either to give us a new creed, so that, after baptizing children into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you may baptize them into the kingdom of heaven; or, if you have one baptism both for infants and for persons of mature age, it follows that infants also should be baptized for the remission of sins after the likeness of the transgression of Adam. But if you think the remission of another's sins implies injustice, and that he has no need of it who could not sin, cross over to Origen, your special favourite, who says that ancient offenses committed long before in the heavens are loosed in baptism. You will then be not only led by his authority in other matters, but will be following his error in this also.”

Here we stand.

Use and abuse of early church fathers on the Eucharist by symbol only article part 6: Clement of Alexandria

Folks online, who wish to rewrite church history to turn church fathers into symbol only affirming and real presence denying teachers, love to use articles like this that purport to set the record straight:

https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

The writing boldly claimed at the start: “ This article will examine the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and a contribution from Origen in order to show that the ancient church never believed, taught or even conceived any doctrine like the real presence dogma.” 

Then it added, “Within these writings are clear references to the flesh and blood of Christ in the eucharist being symbolical, and the words, ‘Eat My flesh and drink My blood’ spoken by Jesus in the bread of life discourse as being metaphorical.”

The rebuttal to what it claimed on Ignatius is dealt with here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers.html

In regards to what was claimed on Justin can be found here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers_22.html

How it dealt with Irenaeus is rebutted here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers_23.html

And the rebuttals to its claims on Tertullian are here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers_6.html?m=1

In regards to its claims on Origen, the response can be found here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers_24.html

This response here will be in regards to the article’s claim on early third century apologist Clement of Alexandria. 

The article on Clement of Alexandria started out by saying:

“Such is the case in a well-used quote from Clement in which attempts are made for supporting the doctrine of real presence.”

It then referred to this quote by the church father:

“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.” (Paedagogus 1:6)

It then responded (while completely avoiding interacting with that quote):

“Few, if any, who read this quote from Catholic apologetic websites will ever actually attempt to read the reference in context. When presented with a borage of other out-of-context quotes seemingly supporting the doctrine, Clement’s quote appears to fit right in. This is especially true in the Catholic’s mind because the words Clement quotes are from John, chapter 6, the Bread of Life Discourse. This discourse Jesus has with the Jews is where Catholics draw their biblical support for the real presence doctrine.

Such irony when accusations of “out-of-context quotes” come from this article given it omitted or changed wordings of what fathers like Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus etc. said to fit it’s context” of making them say what it wanted them to say (which is that the fathers held to the symbol only view of the Eucharist).

What it did with what Clement of Alexandra wrote was no different in its use of selective quotations. It tried to explain away what he wrote as quoted above by offering this quote in the same chapter:

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…” 

It claimed: “The words of the Lord from the bread of life discourse ‘Eat My flesh and drink My blood,’ is, according to Clement, figurative speech.”

 

Here’s where the article created a false dichotomy between assigning metaphors in some form to John 6:51 and holding to real presence. The article mocked a Catholic apologist source for saying the church father held to both real presence and symbolic aspects of the Eucharist:

“Obviously this apologist was trying very hard to compose a coherent response that shines brightly on the Catholic teaching, while acknowledging Clement’s obvious reference to the figurative language.”

Even with this selective quoting, the article doesn’t even make its case against Roman Catholics (and Lutherans who also affirm real presence here) that Clement held to a symbol only view or denied a real presence view of the Eucharist. Consider these words from Clement’s quote above:

“The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified.”

Note that Clement in the context of Eucharistic discussion stated twice Christ is the food. Not exactly a denial of real presence.

Clement went on to say in the same paragraph:

“The Word Himself, then, the beloved One, and our nourisher, has shed His own blood for us, to save humanity; and by Him, we, believing on God, flee to the Word, the care-soothing breast of the Father. And He alone, as is befitting, supplies us children with the milk of love, and those only are truly blessed who suck this breast.”

In the context of discussing the Eucharist, he said we flee to the Word, Christ, “our nourisher” who “supplies us children with the milk of love.”

What did the church father had in mind when he said we are “supplied with the milk of love”?

Earlier in the chapter, Clement said it referred to Christ’s blood:

“The blood of the Word has been also exhibited as milk. Milk being thus provided in parturition, is supplied to the infant; and the breasts, which till then looked straight towards the husband, now bend down towards the child, being taught to furnish the substance elaborated by nature in a way easily received for salutary nourishment. For the breasts are not like fountains full of milk, flowing in ready prepared; but, by effecting a change in the nutriment, form the milk in themselves, and discharge it. And the nutriment suitable and wholesome for the new-formed and new-born babe is elaborated by God, the nourisher and the Father of all that are generated and regenerated — as manna, the celestial food of angels, flowed down from heaven on the ancient Hebrews. Even now, in fact, nurses call the first-poured drink of milk by the same name as that food — manna. Further, pregnant women, on becoming mothers, discharge milk. But the Lord Christ, the fruit of the Virgin, did not pronounce the breasts of women blessed, nor selected them to give nourishment; but when the kind and loving Father had rained down the Word, Himself became spiritual nourishment to the good. O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother. I love to call her the Church. This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin and mother — pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood. Therefore she had not milk; for the milk was this child fair and comely, the body of Christ, which nourishes by the Word the young brood, which the Lord Himself brought forth in throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swathed in His precious blood. O amazing birth! O holy swaddling bands! The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse.”

It is in this context of Clement saying we are nourished in the Eucharist by Christ’s blood (of which he used milk as a metaphor for) that he wrote in that paragraph:

“Eat my flesh, He says, and drink my blood. Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children's growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Saviour in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.”

Pointing out Clement saw the text in metaphor terms also (in the next paragraph) in the chapter does not change the fact he saw it in literal terms here (and even in the same paragraph the article pointed out his use of metaphor). He didn’t just say the bread and wine are the flesh and blood of Christ. He said that Christ “offers His flesh and pours forth His blood.” He said the Eucharist is a means also of 1) receiving a new regimen, that of Christ, in exchange for the old, 2) receiving Him to hide Him within, and 3) enshrining the Savior in our souls, that we may correct the affections of our flesh.

These were not the words of one who affirmed the Eucharist was only a symbol of the body and blood of Christ. Clement elqbtorated on what it meant to drink this milk that is Christ’s blood given in the Eucharist:

“For the flow of milk is the product of the blood; and the source of nourishment is the milk; by which a woman is shown to have brought forth a child, and to be truly a mother, by which also she receives a potent charm of affection. Wherefore the Holy Spirit in the apostle, using the voice of the Lord, says mystically, I have given you milk to drink. 1 Corinthians 3:2 For if we have been regenerated unto Christ, He who has regenerated us nourishes us with His own milk, the Word; for it is proper that what has procreated should immediately supply nourishment to that which has been procreated. And as the regeneration was conformably spiritual, so also was the nutriment of man spiritual. In all respects, therefore, and in all things, we are brought into union with Christ, into relationship through His blood, by which we are redeemed; and into sympathy, in consequence of the nourishment which flows from the Word; and into immortality, through His guidance.”

He listed the effects of the Eucharist: 1) Union with Christ, 2) relationship through His blood, by which we are redeemed, 3) nourishment which flows from the Word (Christ), 4) into immortality.

The last one on the list was consistent with what Ignatius said on the bread  we break: “the medicine of immortality.” And Clement continued on the same theme:

“Furthermore, milk is mixed with sweet wine; and the mixture is beneficial, as when suffering is mixed in the cup in order to immortality. For the milk is curdled by the wine, and separated, and whatever adulteration is in it is drained off. And in the same way, the spiritual communion of faith with suffering man, drawing off as serous matter the lusts of the flesh, commits man to eternity, along with those who are divine, immortalizing him.”

So the article was not being forthright when it wrote: “I don’t know whether or not he bothered to read Clement’s Paedagogus Book 1, chapter 6, but if he did he would know that the entire chapter is an instruction on metaphors.”

It is true as the article pointed out in various (selective) quotations that Clement saw the Eucharist as having symbolic aspects and Eucharistic texts as having metaphor aspects to them. But that isn’t the whole picture of the chapter. Clement did not see the Eucharist as symbol only but also saw it in terms of feeding us Christ’s flesh and blood to redeem and save us unto immortality. And some of his metaphors such as milk for Christ’s blood involved affirming real presence and its life giving and saving effects outright.

The article further quoted Clement in the same writing (but in Book II, Chapter 2):  

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.” (Paedagogus 2:2)

Then it offered this take on the quote:

 

“Clement explains the two-fold attribute of Christ’s blood. One aspect being the physical blood of His flesh that was shed for the remission of sins, and the other aspect being the Spiritual by which we receive Christ as our nourishment. To partake of the eucharist is far more than receiving communion. To partake is to receive Christ in the Spirit. The eucharist is a celebration and remembrance of the Lord’s passion to be observed by those who are born of the Spirit, for they alone are partakers of Christ’s immortality.”

Notice the twist the article put by claiming the Eucharist in Clement’s view was just a celebration and remembrance (defined as symbol only by the article) of what Christ did? Somehow to receive Christ in the Spirit makes the Eucharist just a symbol. Really?

But it is twisting what Clement said to even say that to partake of the Eucharist is to receive Christ in the Spirit, without His real presence. What Clement actually said was “And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality.” These were not the words of a father who denied real presence or saw the Eucharist only as a symbol. Nor when he referred to the Eucharist as “glorious grace” and as “sanctifying body and soul.”

Trying to say those saved already are partakers of Christ’s immortality failed to interact with what Clement said and that immortality (as he also said in Book  I, Chapter 6) came through means of drinking Christ’s blood in the Eucharist itself. Hardly a symbol only view.

And the article offered this quote in another writing from the church father without even offering why that even disagreed with real presence in any given form:

“If, then, ‘the milk’ is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “‘meat’ to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. ‘Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,’ it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.” (Stramata 5:10)

So when the article said, Clement comes nowhere close to supporting the real presence doctrine, and indeed utterly denies it through his instruction,” on the contrary, in truth,  the church father, while seeing symbolic  aspects to Eucharistic texts, came nowhere close to denying real presence doctrine in some or to affirming symbolic only view of the Eucharist regardless of the spins the article put on his words when he did explicitly affirmed real presence and its immortal life giving and saving effects.

In the article, it said, “Given Clement’s credentials and with regard to how much he was admired in the church, it is not at all likely he was out on a limb here. Clement was teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, widely understood in the universal church at that time.”

Unfortunately, for the author of the article, the widely orthodox Christian doctrine understood by the universal church   at the time is in disagreement with the article’s denial of any form of real presence. Clement of Alexandria was no different.

Here we stand. 

Use and abuse of early church fathers on the Eucharist by symbol only article part 5: Origen

Folks online, who wish to rewrite church history to turn church fathers into symbol only affirming and real presence denying teachers, love to use articles like this that purport to set the record straight:

https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

The writing boldly claimed at the start: “ This article will examine the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and a contribution from Origen in order to show that the ancient church never believed, taught or even conceived any doctrine like the real presence dogma.” 

Then it added, “Within these writings are clear references to the flesh and blood of Christ in the eucharist being symbolical, and the words, ‘Eat My flesh and drink My blood’ spoken by Jesus in the bread of life discourse as being metaphorical.”

The rebuttal to what it claimed on Ignatius is dealt with here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers.html

In regards to what was claimed on Justin can be found here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers_22.html

How it dealt with Irenaeus is rebutted here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers_23.html

And the rebuttals to its claims on Tertullian are here:

https://g2witt.blogspot.com/2020/08/use-and-abuse-of-early-church-fathers_6.html?m=1

This response here will be in regards to the article’s claim on early third century apologist Origen. 

The article wrote: “And Origen specifically referred to the eucharistic bread and wine as symbolical.”

 On what basis did he made that claim? It cited him here:

“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)

Note the article put these words in bold: “is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body.” And it underlined the words “typical and symbolical body” as proof Origen cannot possibly affirmed real presence if he assigned any symbolism to the Eucharist.

In fact, elsewhere in the article, a Roman Catholic apologist was mocked for saying Clement of Alexandria affirmed both real presence and symbolic nature of the Eucharist: “Obviously this apologist was trying very hard to compose a coherent response that shines brightly on the Catholic teaching, while acknowledging Clement’s obvious reference to the figurative language.”

Clement of Alexandria will be dealt with in the next blog post, but just wanted to point out the dismissive (and inaccurate) nature of the article’s arguments.

Dismissing what is said doesn’t deal with what is said. Let’s give an example of how one can affirm the Eucharist is a symbol and real presence at the same time. The Lutheran Confessions treated this sacrament as both involving Christ’s real presence and as a sign and seal (terms people treat as symbols). Just because the author of the article doesn’t seem to know one can then and today assign both real presence and symbolic aspects to the Eucharist doesn’t change the fact that such views exist.

The problem is that Origen didn’t even say the bread was symbolic of the body of Christ nor even described the bread as a symbol but was describing Christ’s body itself as typical and symbolic. That’s not a view any side here want to hang on to. But that’s not all Origen wrote.

Origen’s own bolded words actually undercut the article’s claim that he held to the Eucharist was just a symbol. Consider these words from him: “it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord.”  

What makes the sacrament of the Eucharist but the word said over the material of the bread? Origen said such word said over the bread makes it “of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord.”

What advantage would that be? 

On that issue, the  the article doesn’t deal with the sentence that immediately  followed the bolded parts from Origen: “But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.”

Origen said here that the Word made flesh and became true meat of he who eats of it shall live forever:  “But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it.”

The article doesn’t deal with this part which is clearly in the context of the ongoing Eucharist discussion. Origen specifically said those who eat of Christ as the Word made flesh and became true meat shall live forever. The advantage is “shall forever.” That followed the same theme as Ignatius earlier saying in his epistle to the Ephesians that the bread we break is “the medicine of immortality.” Hardly a symbolic only view of the Eucharist.

What the article said next: “And leading up to this explanation, Origen expounded in more detail,” followed by more quoting from this source by Origen to make him denied real presence when the opposite is true:

“ ‘For if any one should turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit.’ Now some one when dealing with the passage might say, that just as ‘not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man,’ of even though it may be thought by the Jews to be defiled, so not that which entereth into the mouth sanctifieth the man, even though what is called the bread of the Lord may be thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify. And the saying is I think, not to be despised, and on this account, demands clear exposition, which seems to me to be thus; as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth, for ‘he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith,’ and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, ‘For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep.’ And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread. And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, ‘For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.’”

Note these statements as bolded by the article in the effect to have Origen saying the Eucharist is only a symbol that doesn’t sanctify or wasn’t Christ’s real presence to us:

 “what is called the bread of the Lord may be thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify.”

“as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth.”

“that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it.”

“And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions.”

As shown by the context above, Origen wasn’t denying that Eucharist sanctified those who partake if not unworthily. What he was denying real presence for those who ate the bread unworthily: “for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’”

That’s a far cry from seeing the Eucharist as just a symbol of Christ’s body and blood. Origen held to the Eucharist there as giving life to those who eat not unworthily of the Word made flesh.

Yet the article (which, as it does throughout, conflated real presence with Roman Catholicism) concluded on Origen:

“There are several reference from Origen that demonstrate his understanding of the eucharist and the bread of life discourse, and none of them agree with Catholic doctrine.”

What is demonstrated if Origen was read in context with the quotes read so far was that he was anything but an advocate of symbol only view of the Eucharist. Holding to there’s symbolic aspect to the Eucharist isn’t the same as holding to symbol only view of it.

The article went on to say:  “However, it is not uncommon for Catholic apologetics sites to use references from Origen that are used to support the real presence doctrine. These references, however, are far from their context and taken from writings of doubtful authenticity known as Origen’s homilies.”

Besides (as usual) conflating real presence with only Roman Catholicism, it offers zero evidence that 1) the quotes from Origen’s homilies were far from their context (not even offering to give quotes and then explain why) and 2) the homilies were of doubtful authenticity.

Here’s Origen’s Homily 13 on Leviticus:

“But if these things are referred to the greatness of the mystery, you will find this ‘remembrance’ to have the effect of a great propitiation. If you return to that ‘loaf which descends from heaven and gives life to they world, that shew bread ‘whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood’ and if you turn your attention to that ‘remembrance’ about which the Lord says, ‘Do this in remembrance of me,’ you will find that this is the only ‘remembrance’ which makes God gracious to men.”

Origen directly quoted Christ’s words in Matthew 26:26-28 on the Eucharist. And he referred to the word remembrance quoted from the gospel as 1) having the effect of a great propitiation and 2) making God gracious to men. On top of that, he said, in this context of discussing the Eucharist, that this involves 1)  “returning to that loaf which descends from heaven and gives life to this world” and 2) “bread, whom God set as propitiation through faith in his blood.” These are not the words of a symbol only advocate on the Eucharist but one who  held to the Eucharist as itself grace and propitiation (that the blood of Christ gives), through faith in His blood and through returning to Him as the loafer and bread from heaven.

The article’s claim, that Origen’s statements from his homilies quoted to support real presence are far from their context, isn’t true. Nor does it offer to show any proof  that homilies like these are spurious.

Nor is it even true that only homilies from Origen are cited to support real presence.

Origen did write in Against Celsus Book VIII Chapter 33:

“But we give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.”

He said several things: 1) this bread,  presented to us and that we eat becomes a sacred body by prayer and 2) this sacred body, that the bread becomes as we eat it, sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. That’s two things that go squarely against those who affirm the Eucharist is only symbolic of the body and blood of Christ.

Here we stand.