A message from our CEO about the future of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange. Read now.
3 deleted 4722 characters in body
source | link

ItAs is my understanding that every single church father (those held to be saints by the church) asserted a similar idea of free will to this, save for Augustineindicated in his Anti-Pelagian writingsthe comments and attached chat. It appears you are not asking for biblical arguments so I am not familiar with the distinction between man's will just quote a small selection of church writings that support thisbeing "necessarily moved" and "coerced", but it would seem to arise from John Calvin wishing to retain both the idea ofthat man is a free will:

Justin the Martyr, First Apologymoral agent and totally depraved, Chapter 43 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.pdfso the man must be "necessarily moved" by irresistible grace to accept baptism and become regenerate, 2nd century):but not be coerced.

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness.

Conference 13The idea that man is a free moral agent and the chief cause of John Cassianevil (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.pdf, 4i.e. -5th century)

For the purpose of God whereby He made man not to perish but to live for ever, stands immovable. And when His goodness sees in us even the very smallest spark of good will shining forth, which He Himself has struck as it were out of the hard flints of our hearts, He fans and fosters it and nurses it with His breath, as He “willeth all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” for as He says, “it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish,” and again it says: “Neither will God have a soul to perish, but recalleth,” meaning that he that is cast off should not altogether perish. For He is true, and lieth not when He lays down with an oath: “As I live, saith the Lord God, for I will not the death of a sinner, but that he should turn from his way and live.” For if He willeth not that one of His little ones should perish, how can we imagine without grievous blasphemy that He does not generally will all men, but only some instead of all to be saved? Those then who perish, perish against His will, as He testifies against each one of them day by day: “Turn from your evil ways, and why will ye die, O house of Israel?” And again: “How often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not;” and: “Wherefore is this people in Jerusalem turned away with a stubborn revolting? They have hardened their faces and refused to return.” The grace of Christ then is at hand every day, which, while it “willeth all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” calleth all without any exception, saying: “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.”

The conclusion of God cannot be the Second Councilcause or creator of Orange (http://www.ewtn.com/library/Councils/Orange.htm, 6th centuryevil)

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him.

This council is generally thought by even reformed authors to uphold prevenient grace partly because of this excerpt.

As for Calvin, he teaches what is now termed "irresistible grace" which is a natural conclusion from his view of total depravity, which saysfoundational Christian concept that manI trust is so corrupted by his sin that he can not choose good unlessuniversally accepted. So the calling and electionquestion becomes where does total depravity come from, since this idea of God were to override histhe will irresistibly. I think you are asking how he inherited this theological traditionbeing "necessarily moved" logically flows out of it. Luckily he discusses history a bitThankfully John Calvin is rather explicit in his Institutes and explains himselfthis regard:

So John Calvin clearly admits to beindicates that his teachings on free-will are, in general, in line with Augustine, but outside the historical understandings and interpretations put forth byof the Church beforelarger tradition of the reformation, save for Augustine. So I would say Calvin got it partly from AugustineGreek fathers and partly from his own exegesisother Western writers.

He practically identifies his doctrine of total depravity (which necessitates irresistible grace) with Christianity itself, shaming those who teach otherwise as being under the influences of unchristian philosophy; which is to say that he thinks the entire Church was confused on a core Christian doctrine, besides Augustine, until he and Luther arrived.

However, its obvious that Aquinas is not referring to deliver the truthJohn Calvin in his writing. What he sees as a sea of confusionSee my discussion with Nathaniel; I instead see as unanimously teachingwould assume with him that man has free willAquinas is referring to some Augustinian interpretive tradition that stops short of elaborating on exactly how the will of God and man's will interacts. I haven't done anything near exhaustive research, but from what is expressed in Cassian's Conferences andlike John Calvin, sought to retain the 2nd council of Orange it appearstraditional Christian concept that the ancient church generally taught what Protestants later labelled prevenient grace, which teachesman creates evil while insisting that gracehis nature is essential and precedes any good work oncorrupted to the part of man, butpoint that he cannot choose salvation.

So I suppose this is not irresistiblea partial answer. And thanks Nathaniel for helping me understand some nuances of the topic.

It is my understanding that every single church father (those held to be saints by the church) asserted a similar idea of free will to this, save for Augustine in his Anti-Pelagian writings. It appears you are not asking for biblical arguments so I will just quote a small selection of church writings that support this idea of free will:

Justin the Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 43 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.pdf, 2nd century):

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness.

Conference 13 of John Cassian (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.pdf, 4-5th century)

For the purpose of God whereby He made man not to perish but to live for ever, stands immovable. And when His goodness sees in us even the very smallest spark of good will shining forth, which He Himself has struck as it were out of the hard flints of our hearts, He fans and fosters it and nurses it with His breath, as He “willeth all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” for as He says, “it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish,” and again it says: “Neither will God have a soul to perish, but recalleth,” meaning that he that is cast off should not altogether perish. For He is true, and lieth not when He lays down with an oath: “As I live, saith the Lord God, for I will not the death of a sinner, but that he should turn from his way and live.” For if He willeth not that one of His little ones should perish, how can we imagine without grievous blasphemy that He does not generally will all men, but only some instead of all to be saved? Those then who perish, perish against His will, as He testifies against each one of them day by day: “Turn from your evil ways, and why will ye die, O house of Israel?” And again: “How often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not;” and: “Wherefore is this people in Jerusalem turned away with a stubborn revolting? They have hardened their faces and refused to return.” The grace of Christ then is at hand every day, which, while it “willeth all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” calleth all without any exception, saying: “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.”

The conclusion of the Second Council of Orange (http://www.ewtn.com/library/Councils/Orange.htm, 6th century)

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him.

This council is generally thought by even reformed authors to uphold prevenient grace partly because of this excerpt.

As for Calvin, he teaches what is now termed "irresistible grace" which is a natural conclusion from his view of total depravity, which says that man is so corrupted by his sin that he can not choose good unless the calling and election of God were to override his will irresistibly. I think you are asking how he inherited this theological tradition. Luckily he discusses history a bit in his Institutes and explains himself:

So John Calvin clearly admits to be outside the historical understandings and interpretations put forth by the Church before the reformation, save for Augustine. So I would say Calvin got it partly from Augustine and partly from his own exegesis.

He practically identifies his doctrine of total depravity (which necessitates irresistible grace) with Christianity itself, shaming those who teach otherwise as being under the influences of unchristian philosophy; which is to say that he thinks the entire Church was confused on a core Christian doctrine besides Augustine until he and Luther arrived to deliver the truth. What he sees as a sea of confusion I instead see as unanimously teaching that man has free will that stops short of elaborating on exactly how the will of God and man's will interacts. I haven't done anything near exhaustive research, but from what is expressed in Cassian's Conferences and the 2nd council of Orange it appears that the ancient church generally taught what Protestants later labelled prevenient grace, which teaches that grace is essential and precedes any good work on the part of man, but is not irresistible.

As is indicated in the comments and attached chat. I am not familiar with the distinction between man's will being "necessarily moved" and "coerced", but it would seem to arise from John Calvin wishing to retain both the idea that man is a free moral agent and totally depraved, so the man must be "necessarily moved" by irresistible grace to accept baptism and become regenerate, but not be coerced.

The idea that man is a free moral agent and the chief cause of evil (i.e. - God cannot be the cause or creator of evil) is a foundational Christian concept that I trust is universally accepted. So the question becomes where does total depravity come from, since this idea of the will being "necessarily moved" logically flows out of it. Thankfully John Calvin is rather explicit in this regard:

So John Calvin indicates that his teachings on free-will are, in general, in line with Augustine, but outside of the larger tradition of the Greek fathers and other Western writers.

He practically identifies his doctrine of total depravity (which necessitates irresistible grace) with Christianity itself, shaming those who teach otherwise as being under the influences of unchristian philosophy; which is to say that he thinks the entire Church was confused on a core Christian doctrine, besides Augustine, until he and Luther arrived.

However, its obvious that Aquinas is not referring to John Calvin in his writing. See my discussion with Nathaniel; I would assume with him that Aquinas is referring to some Augustinian interpretive tradition that, like John Calvin, sought to retain the traditional Christian concept that man creates evil while insisting that his nature is corrupted to the point that he cannot choose salvation.

So I suppose this is a partial answer. And thanks Nathaniel for helping me understand some nuances of the topic.

2 added 517 characters in body
source | link

It is my understanding that every single church father (those held to be saints by the church) asserted a similar idea of free will to this, save for Augustine in his Anti-Pelagian writings. As I trustIt appears you are familiar with thenot asking for biblical arguments so I will simply presentjust quote a small selection of thechurch writings that I'm familiar withsupport this idea of free will:

As for Calvin, he teaches what is now termed "irresistible grace" because he taughtwhich is a natural conclusion from his view of total depravity, which says that man wasis so corrupted by his sin that his will was so impaired that he can not choose good unless the calling and election of God were to override his will irresistibly. I think you are asking how he inherited this theological tradition. Luckily he discusses history a bit in his Institutes and explains himself:

He practically identifies his doctrine of total depravity (which necessitates irresistible grace) with Christianity itself, shaming those who teach otherwise as being under the influences of unchristian philosophy; which is to say that he thinks the entire Church was confused on a core Christian doctrine besides Augustine until he and Luther arrived to deliver the truth. WhichWhat he sees as a sea of confusion I instead see as unanimously teaching that man has free will that stops short of elaborating on exactly how the will of God and man's will interacts. I haven't done anything near exhaustive research, but from what is an interesting position to sayexpressed in Cassian's Conferences and the least2nd council of Orange it appears that the ancient church generally taught what Protestants later labelled prevenient grace, which teaches that grace is essential and precedes any good work on the part of man, but is not irresistible.

It is my understanding that every single church father (those held to be saints by the church) asserted a similar idea of free will to this save for Augustine in his Anti-Pelagian writings. As I trust you are familiar with the biblical arguments I will simply present a small selection of the writings that I'm familiar with:

As for Calvin, he teaches what is now termed "irresistible grace" because he taught that man was so corrupted by his sin that his will was so impaired that he can not choose good unless the calling and election of God were to override his will irresistibly. I think you are asking how he inherited this theological tradition. Luckily he discusses history a bit in his Institutes and explains himself:

He practically identifies his doctrine of total depravity (which necessitates irresistible grace) with Christianity itself, shaming those who teach otherwise as being under the influences of unchristian philosophy; which is to say that he thinks the entire Church was confused on a core Christian doctrine besides Augustine until he and Luther arrived to deliver the truth. Which is an interesting position to say the least.

It is my understanding that every single church father (those held to be saints by the church) asserted a similar idea of free will to this, save for Augustine in his Anti-Pelagian writings. It appears you are not asking for biblical arguments so I will just quote a small selection of church writings that support this idea of free will:

As for Calvin, he teaches what is now termed "irresistible grace" which is a natural conclusion from his view of total depravity, which says that man is so corrupted by his sin that he can not choose good unless the calling and election of God were to override his will irresistibly. I think you are asking how he inherited this theological tradition. Luckily he discusses history a bit in his Institutes and explains himself:

He practically identifies his doctrine of total depravity (which necessitates irresistible grace) with Christianity itself, shaming those who teach otherwise as being under the influences of unchristian philosophy; which is to say that he thinks the entire Church was confused on a core Christian doctrine besides Augustine until he and Luther arrived to deliver the truth. What he sees as a sea of confusion I instead see as unanimously teaching that man has free will that stops short of elaborating on exactly how the will of God and man's will interacts. I haven't done anything near exhaustive research, but from what is expressed in Cassian's Conferences and the 2nd council of Orange it appears that the ancient church generally taught what Protestants later labelled prevenient grace, which teaches that grace is essential and precedes any good work on the part of man, but is not irresistible.

1
source | link

It is my understanding that every single church father (those held to be saints by the church) asserted a similar idea of free will to this save for Augustine in his Anti-Pelagian writings. As I trust you are familiar with the biblical arguments I will simply present a small selection of the writings that I'm familiar with:

Justin the Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 43 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.pdf, 2nd century):

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness.

Conference 13 of John Cassian (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.pdf, 4-5th century)

For the purpose of God whereby He made man not to perish but to live for ever, stands immovable. And when His goodness sees in us even the very smallest spark of good will shining forth, which He Himself has struck as it were out of the hard flints of our hearts, He fans and fosters it and nurses it with His breath, as He “willeth all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” for as He says, “it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish,” and again it says: “Neither will God have a soul to perish, but recalleth,” meaning that he that is cast off should not altogether perish. For He is true, and lieth not when He lays down with an oath: “As I live, saith the Lord God, for I will not the death of a sinner, but that he should turn from his way and live.” For if He willeth not that one of His little ones should perish, how can we imagine without grievous blasphemy that He does not generally will all men, but only some instead of all to be saved? Those then who perish, perish against His will, as He testifies against each one of them day by day: “Turn from your evil ways, and why will ye die, O house of Israel?” And again: “How often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not;” and: “Wherefore is this people in Jerusalem turned away with a stubborn revolting? They have hardened their faces and refused to return.” The grace of Christ then is at hand every day, which, while it “willeth all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” calleth all without any exception, saying: “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.”

The conclusion of the Second Council of Orange (http://www.ewtn.com/library/Councils/Orange.htm, 6th century)

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him.

This council is generally thought by even reformed authors to uphold prevenient grace partly because of this excerpt.

As for Calvin, he teaches what is now termed "irresistible grace" because he taught that man was so corrupted by his sin that his will was so impaired that he can not choose good unless the calling and election of God were to override his will irresistibly. I think you are asking how he inherited this theological tradition. Luckily he discusses history a bit in his Institutes and explains himself:

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2 Chapter 2, Part 4

Moreover, although the Greek fathers, above others, and especially Chrysostom, have exceeded due bonds in extolling the powers of the human will, yet all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings ... still the expression was often on their lips, that man's natural gifts were corrupted, and his supernatural taken away. Of the thing implied by these words, however, scarcely one in a hundred had any distinct idea ... Persons professing to be the disciples of Christ have spoken too much like the philosophers on this subject. As if human nature were still in its integrity, the term free will has always been in use among the Latins, while the Greeks were not ashamed to use a still more presumptuous term ... (autexousion), as if man had still full power in himself.

So John Calvin clearly admits to be outside the historical understandings and interpretations put forth by the Church before the reformation, save for Augustine. So I would say Calvin got it partly from Augustine and partly from his own exegesis.

He practically identifies his doctrine of total depravity (which necessitates irresistible grace) with Christianity itself, shaming those who teach otherwise as being under the influences of unchristian philosophy; which is to say that he thinks the entire Church was confused on a core Christian doctrine besides Augustine until he and Luther arrived to deliver the truth. Which is an interesting position to say the least.