CORRECTION
I need to read my posts more carefully. In the first paragraph, change evil
and good around so that the sentence reads, "In the latter writings he took
th eposition that the individual will is oriented either toward evil or
good, and if the latter it is so oriented by the grace of God."
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 8:27 PM
Subject: Freedom of the will (was Re: Bear sacrifice)
> Hi, if you all will "bear" with me, I'll continue to stay off the original
> subject ("Bear sacrifice") and do what I love to do, zero in on a
statement
> in an earlier post and question it. This time it is Adrian's assertion
> (below) that Augustine "stongly affirmed free will." I think that may
have
> been true in his treatise on free will against the Manichaeans, but by the
> time he was wading in against Pelagius, I think he took a different tack.
> In the latter writings he took the position that the individual will is
> oriented either toward good or evil, and if the latter it is so oriented
by
> the grace of God. Robert Evans (_Pelagius: Inquiries and Reappraisals_,
p.
> 89) sums up Augustine's change in these words:
>
> "What we observe here is an instance of Augustine's shifting away
from
> an image of man as an autonomous chooser among moral
> possibilities to an image of man as inescapably turned either toward
or
> away from God and as turned toward God only through the power of the
divine
> grace. The first image was relevant to his anti-Manichaean polemic.
> It is one of Augustine's weaknesses as a theologian that these images
> are never satisfactorily related to one another."
>
> In fact, in the treatise against the Manichaeans, Augustine took a
position
> on the human will that is quite congruent with Pelagius' position that
> "freedom of the will" means that the will is free to choose either good or
> evil. Against Pelagius Augustine took the position stated in my first
> paragraph. Pelagius reminded Augustine of his earlier position, which was
> not something the latter wanted to be reminded of.
>
> Finally, I want to say that I think the notion of double
predestination
> is there in Augustine, and was picked up by Acquinas. Calvin took the
> notion to its logical consequence.
>
> Bob Schneider
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adrian Teo" <ateo@whitworth.edu>
> To: "'george murphy'" <gmurphy@raex.com>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 2:46 PM
> Subject: RE: Bear sacrifice
>
>
> > Hello George,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: george murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:22 AM
> > > To: Adrian Teo
> > > Cc: 'Robert Schneider'; asa@calvin.edu
> > > Subject: Re: Bear sacrifice
> > > Luther's best known statement about the fallibility
> > > of councils comes
> > > from the Leipzig debate
> > > of 1519, & he was referring especially to the Council of
> > > Constance a century
> > > earlier where Jan Hus was condemned. Among the articles that
> > > that council had
> > > condemned & which Luther had in mind was "The universal Holy
> > > Church is one, as
> > > the number of the elect is one", which is from Augustine.
> >
> > The actual article that was condemned states:
> > 1. There is only one holy universal church, which is the total number
of
> > those predestined to salvation. It therefore follows that the universal
> holy
> > church is only one, inasmuch as there is only one number of all those
who
> > are predestined to salvation.
> >
> > It was this "strong" notion of predestination that was condemned
(because
> it
> > would mean taht God predestined certain people to damnation), which
IMO,
> is
> > quite different from that of Augustine, who also strongly affirmed free
> > will.
> >
> > > Luther's positive attitude toward I Nicea, I
> > > Constantinople, Ephesus & Chalcedon is shown in his
> > > considerably later essay
> > > "On the Councils and the Church" (LW 41). He does not indeed
> > > say that they
> > > were infallible but simply that their doctrinal decisions
> > > were correct because
> > > they were in accord with scripture.
> >
> > With all due respect, knowing that you are Lutheran, does this
statement
> not
> > seem to suggest that Luther is acting as the final arbiter of what is
in
> > accord with scripture and what isn't? I ask this question in the most
> > respectful manner, and I pray that you will not misundertand me and
feel
> > offended.
> >
> > > It is also worth noting that III Constantinople
> > > condemned Pope Honorius
> > > as a heretic, so it is not easy to maintain the infallibility
> > > of both popes and
> > > councils.
> >
> > Pope St. Leo II was the one who condemned Pope Honorius I. But it was
for
> > *negligence of duty* in the face of the heresy of Sergius. Honorius
had
> not
> > spoken ex cathedra, so infallibility had not been involved.
> >
> > Blessings,
> >
> > Adrian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 27 2002 - 11:12:00 EDT