Leighton Flowers recently did a two hour response to Ryan Reeves’ lectures on Luther vs Calvin here:
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment