Divine Impassability and Divine Immutability

Are two doctrines that I had mistakenly conflated with each other in some of my past posts mentioning Divine Impassability on this blog. But they are related.

Divine Impassibility is the position that God did not suffer when Jesus was on Th Cross, it doesn't deny the Divinity of Christ, but holds that it was only in His Humanity that He Suffered.  Divine Immutability is the position that God doesn't change.  They tend to go together because Suffering is often both the cause and effect of some kind of Change.

The three way dispute between Chalcedonian, Nestorian and Miaphysite Christologies from the 5th and 6th Centuries is arguably pure semantics since all three were/are Nicene Trinitarians who view Christ as both Fully Divine and Fully Human.  The Nestorians held that Christ has two Natures, Divine and Human, that are not in any way mixed.  The Miaphysite position is that Christ has One Nature that is both Divine and Human.  The Chalcedonian position is that Christ had Two Natures, Divine and Human, that are mixed in the Incarnation.  The Bible doesn't directly address any of that, but my understanding of the Biblical Metanarrative leads me to favoring the Chalcedonian position, even if there are some details of the Chalcedonian Confession I don't like.

Thing is what makes these disputes a little less semantical are the other issues tied into them.  My greatest affinity with Nestorianism is that I don't like calling Mary Theotokos.  However since the technical accuracy of the term is not my issue with it, it's really irrelevant to the actual dispute Nestorius, Cyril and others were having 15 centuries ago.

While Divine Impassability is affirmed by theologians in all three camps, it was the Nestorians for whom it was the core of their position, and they alone who accused both other camps of rejecting Divine Impassability whether they would have self identified as doing so or not.  That is why in-spite of my respect for the Ancient Church of the East and how much I prefer the Antiochene School's approach to Scripture over the Alexandrian, I have to reject Nestorian Christology.

Thing is the Nestorians were not wrong to suggest that it's rather illogical to claim Divine Impassability if you believe the Divine and Human Natures were fully United in the Incarnation.  Cyril of Alexandria's attempts to justify himself on this involved a lot of Platonist Philosophical nonsense.  And that is why I unapologetically reject Divine Impassability.

But I still oppose misrepresenting Nestorius or the Ancient Church of The East, they did and still do believe Christ was one Person/Personality.  But the Miaphysites also get misrepresented, they were NOT Monophysites.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council affirmed the Theopaschite formula in it's 10th Canon.  And yet Impassability has still been affirmed by theologians belonging to Churches that nominally uphold that Council, thanks to Augustine's influence in the West and Cyril's in the East, so that canon gets ignored.  When the Fifth Council is brought up today it's only to debate what/who it did or did not condemn, never what it affirmed.  But getting the Theopaschite Formula affirmed was the whole point of the Council at the time, Justinian thought that would be the key to mending the Chalcedonian schism.

The fact that I agree with Justinian on the Theopaschite formula doesn't change that I despise him as a Ruler.  His obsession with trying to force everyone to agree only made them dig their heels in deeper.

Another issue related to the Divine Impassability v Theopaschite debate is Patripassianism, did The Father also suffer?  I would argue He Suffered in the way any Father watching His Son Suffer would Suffer, but that is distinct from feeling the Physical pain.

Augustine of Hippo used to be a Manichean Gnostic, and the whole reason he once held a Gnostic attitude towards the God of the Old Testament was because he was uncomfortable with the idea of God being so Emotional.  It was Ambrose telling he can just allegorize away all of those verses that finally enabled Augustine to abandon Gnosticism and become "Orthodox".  To me it is Augustine being someone who doesn't want an Emotional God that is the source of everything wrong with this Theology.

While strictly speaking the word Impassibility refers to is Suffering, to some this doctrine refers to God not feeling Pleasure as well.  To me this rejecting of God being an Emotional being at all is pure Platonic/Pythagorean heresy and utterly in conflict with The Hebrew Bible and The New Testament which teaches that God Is Love as the experience of Love tends to involve both Pleasure and Pain.

On the subject of Divine Immutability, it depends what you mean by it.  Malachi 3:6 is what most gets abused here as people keep quoting it while ignoring it's context.  That God keeps His Promises doesn't change, that He Is Love won't change, therefore He will NOT allow His People to be Consumed.  That Core aspect of Who God Is does not change.  It's the same with Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same Yesterday, Today and Forever" the context is about Grace and Jesus being a Sacrifice offered for us, it's about His essential character not some absolute declaration that nothing can ever change, as Romans 8:35 and it's context make clear.

But The Bible also refers to God Repenting (See Exodus 32:14 and Numbers 14:12-20; Jonah 3:10; Amos 7:3-9; Jeremiah 26:3), repent means to change one's mind.  And I feel the whole point of the Incarnation is that Humanity and Divinity are both permanently changed by being United in Christ.  The Hyper Immutability that is favored by Nestorius, Cyril and Augustine is again a heresy based on the Greek and Roman Churches' infatuation with Platonic and Pythagorean theology, not Scripture.

Divine Immutability doesn't begin with Plato or Pythagoras however but with Xenophanes.

There is also the matter of one of the most vital passages to defining God in all of scripture.  The famous "I Am that I am" statement, many scholars have argued a more accurate translation would be "I Am who I Am Becoming" or "I Will Be whom I Will Be", meanings that imply change even if in a paradoxical way due to God's knowing the future.  I personally have grown to like "I Am whom I Will Be", "Watashi wa watashi ga dare ni naru ka".

Update September 2022: I bought Robert C. Gregg and Dennis E. Groh's Early Arianism - a view of salvation for the purpose of research on the Arian controversy I'm doing for the sake of a possible future post.  But two things I didn't expect to learn were. 1. Arius had a fixation on Divine Impassability similar to the future Nestorians.  2. The Arians used Divine Immutability against the Nicenes by proving the changeability of The Son.  And this was kind of their greatest strength because Athanasius was unwilling to abandon Divine Immutability.

The Changeability the Arians the argued for The Son was for Improvability, which you may at first think doesn't correlate to the Changeability I am here arguing for The Godhead, but from a certain point of view it is.  God incarnating and becoming fully Human made Him a better God.  Hebrews stresses how Jesus faced all the Temptations normal humans face yet never sinned.  Not sinning is easy when you aren't even tempted, it is facing Temptation and beating it that is a true accomplishment.

The Pagan Greek Origins of Puritan Sexual Morality.

I wrote an Amazon Review for the book Plato or Paul?: The Origins of Western Homophobia by Theodore W. Jennings Jr.  [I recently learned that Jennings had passed away in 2020, may he Rest in Peace.]

I have also more recently obtained The Classical Origins of Modern Homophobia by Robert H. Allen.  I may also write an Amazon Review for it. 

I first learned about the Homophobia of Plato's The Laws however when I discovered this Website.

https://people.well.com/user/aquarius/

In it's article Plato: The Serpent in the Garden of Sexuality.  

My own past blog posts on this issue are a bit outdated now due to their references to things I've since changed my mind on, or at least now have a more informed opinion on.  Like how I had fallen into the trap of mistakenly thinking there was anything Communist or Socialist about either of Plato's proposed political systems.

Each of those three discussions of this issue have areas I disagree with.  None are as "Conservative" as I am about the origins of The Bible.  Only Jennings agrees with me that Paul is on our side, and Allen's agenda is not to exonerate The Bible of Homophobia at all, he alone of them agrees with the Homophobic reading of even the Leviticus verses.  Actually he cites a Saul Olyan that it's specifically referring to Male on Male Anal Penetration, which is close to my old position, but I now believe the "Wife's Bed" and "Abomination to Her" readings are the key to proving this is not a unilateral condemnation of any specific Sex act much less any type of relationship.

I think Jennings's theory on what Arsenokoites refers to (which is that it's essentially Rape) is probably most correct.  But I don't agree with his argument against it being in any way an allusion to the Leviticus verses, I simply think what he correctly argues Arsenkoites refers to, is what some people in Ancient Corinth and Ephesus thought those Leviticus verses were about.  His argument that Paul doesn't generally cite Leviticus to make moral arguments is irrelevant to the Vice Lists, because in those he was just using terms his audience would be familiar with, the vice lists are not themselves arguments against the behaviors listed.

I think Jennings's break down of Romans 1 is useful. but I still mainly side with Colby Martin's take on that in his Unclobber series.  Which is that Romans 1:18-32 is a rhetorical rant, that he's laying out the worldview the Epistle as a whole is written against, paraphrasing passages from Wisdom of Solomon and adding in Philo's usage of the "Para Phusis" concept introduced in The Laws, in order to spend the rest of the Epistle refuting that world view, in Romans 11 what God does is Para Phusis clearly rejecting the idea that being Para Phusis is immoral.

And Allen's cynical readings of The Bible lead to similar issues with extra-Biblical Church writers as well.  Clement of Alexandria was the first Christian to bring this "Para Phusis" Sexual Morality into the Church.  The crime of "corrupting youth" in works like the Didache is not Homosexuality or anything Sexual, just as it wasn't when Athens executed Socrates for that crime.  I likewise feel Allen is being unfair to both Justin Martyr and Tertullian.

The reason why I didn't put Plato in the title of this post is because Allen argues Pythagorean Philosophy and it's Dualism is the ultimate origin of this problem.  He argues Authentic Plato may have been at least partially influenced by Pythagoreanism, but also argues that The Laws as we have it is not an authentic work of Plato but a forgery produced and transmitted primarily by Pythagoreans.  And I think he might be correct on that.  Here is a YouTube video expressing similar ideas about the origins of Laws and how to interpret The Republic.

But still Authentic Plato or not the development of Platonic Schools of Philosophy was influenced by The Laws on these issues and others, which in turn influenced Roman Stoicism, Neopythagoreanism, Hellenistic Judaism, Gnosticism, The Alexandrian School of Christianity, and Neo-Platonism, which also all influenced each other in late Antiquity culminating in John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo.  Allen also documents how across the board Pagan Roman Society was Homophobic having been influenced by Southern Italian Pythagoreanism long before they even came into contact with the Eastern Mediterranean.

However another theory on the perceived inconsistencies between The Laws and the seemingly more positive Sexual attitudes expressed in works like Symposium is that Plato changed over the course of his life, perhaps partly from Pythagorean influence.  The Laws is considered the very last book he wrote and Symposium one of the earliest.

But going back to more indisputably authentic Plato, the title character of Timaeus (who's still around during Critias) is inferred to be a Pythagorean in the text of that dialogue.  So what Timaeus says can reasonably be presumed to be at least what Plato thought the Pythagoreans believed.  And it's from Timaeus we get what's considered the Platonist Creation Myth including the The Demiurge.  What's up for debate is how much the author wants us to take the title character and his ideas seriously.

The Website I linked to up top also has interesting stuff on the "Born Eunuch" issue and other subjects.  But it's article The Historic Origins of Church Condemnation of Homosexuality I don't recommend.  I have found no other sources claiming Eusebius of Nicomedia was ever referred to as a Eunuch.  meanwhile the pro Nicene Emperor Constans was a known Homosexual, before Theodosius I it was the Arian Emperors who were far more oppressive to those who disagreed with them.  [Update: So the Eunuch he's talking isn't the Bishop of Nicomedia who died in 341 but a different Eusebius mentioned in Athanasius's History of The Arians during the "Papacy" of Liberius.  Still I feel it's wrong to say the Arian controversy is why The Church embraced this Pythagorean sexual morality.  There were clearly Homosexuals and Platonists on both sides, Arian theology wouldn't be possible without the Timaeus based distinction between the Demiurge and the Monad, though making that distinction arguably begins with Numenius of Apamea in the 2nd Century.]

It's not just Homophobia, condemning all Sex Outside Marriage has the same roots in The Laws attributed to Plato.  As well as the idea that Sex is only for Reproduction which 1 Corinthians 7 explicitly contradicts.  What's almost Prophetic about it is how it talks about using Religion to condition society to react to Same Sex love the same way they do Incest.  These people were never fully able to get the Greeks to believe such things about their Native gods, but once many Greeks started worshiping the God of Abraham without a proper understanding of Bronze Age Semitic culture, that was when this long term scheme to lie about God's attitude towards Sex was able to take off.

Here is another Article I found about Pythagorean Sexual Morality.  And here is one on Pythagoras and Celibacy.

And it's not just the Sexual Morality of The Laws either.  Some people accuse Plato of being Proto-Fascist just based on The Republic, but The Laws is even more indistinguishable from the actual definition of Fascism.  Allen argued that the Pythagorean movement was tied to Totalitarianism already even before Plato's time.  Meanwhile the Calvinist view of Election which derives from Augustine's Gnostic Predestinationism lends itself well to the in-group vs out-group mentality.

Connecting this Sexual Morality to Platonism is useful because of how many other Unbiblical Ideas to enter Christianity are also tied to Plato's both direct and indirect influence on Greco-Roman Church Writers, including ideas opposed by many Conservative Evangelicals today.  So maybe a good way to open some minds is to show how these Sexual attitudes are tied to other doctrines they don't like.

Not all Platonist Ideas to enter the Church became part of Mainstream Christian thought.  Gnosticism and Marcionism were condemned as Heretical, as well as the Pre-Existence of Souls doctrine often associated with Origen, and Arianism which was also influenced by the Theology of Timaeus.  Still those ideas are related to things that did become mainstream.  Most casual Christians do have a fairly Platonist Understanding of the Immortality of the Soul simply minus the Reincarnation and Pre-Existence (Pope Benedict XII's Benedictus Deus in 1336 basically canonized the After Life depicted in Gorgias for the Western Church.), which in turn helps lead to Full Preterism and Amillenialism and any other Eschatology that denies a Literal Bodily Resurrection. 

Divine Impassability and Divine Immutability which I plan on making a separate post on are also tied to Platonic understandings of The Divine.  And a section in Gorgias definitely influenced the Traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of Hell and The Lake of Fire.

Evangelicals who don't like how more mainline denominations have been rejecting taking The Old Testament literally should know that not only is that a Platonist influence but the Allegorists are open about that.  In Brad Jersak's seminar on the subject he brags about how the Early Church Fathers decided to take the same approach to the Hebrew Bible that Plato and other Philosophers took to Homer and Hesiod.  He leaves out how the Antiochene School rejected that idea and were hyper-literalists.

Even Plato wasn't wrong on everything, he correctly concluded that the Earth was Round.  And that is why the most openly anti-Plato Christians on YouTube right now are the Flat Earthers.  So someone should explain to them how their Puritan Sexual morality has the same Platonist roots.  Still these Flat Earthers are unwittingly Pythagorean themselves with their Dome Cosmology resulting in a hard separation between the Divine and Earthly realms, and Rob Skiba even entertaining the view that we didn't have physical bodies before The Fall which is outright Gnostic.

One Pythagorean idea that was only ever accepted among some of the Full Blown Gnostics was Reincarnation, that one was especially impossible to make fit into The Bible.  But I do feel those who on Eschatology argue John The Baptist was the return of Elijah promised by Malachi's final verse are trying to plant a seed for it.

Over the course of the 2nd through 6th centuries Greco-Roman Christians increasingly took on Platonist Influences but in different ways.  Some seemed to be taking the Dialogue structure more so then any Metaphysics.  However when I look at Athenagoras of Athens who came a little before even Clement, it seems like the Sexual Morality of Laws was one of the first aspects of Platonism Christians embraced.  Maybe it's because even early on Paul's use of Para Phusis was easy to misunderstand.  Or maybe it's because this Minority religion mistakenly felt they should be rebelling agaisnt the Morals of mainstream Greek Society which it so happened was also what the Pythagoreans were doing.

Some similarities between Neoplatonism and Hellenic Judeo-Christians are the former being influenced by the latter, Numenius of Apamea definitely studied Jewish Platonists like Philo, and Ammonius Saccas was raised a Christian but then left the faith before becoming a teacher of Plotinus.  The puritanical Sexual Morality however definitely began with the Pplatonists not the Christians as this post has shown.

Lexical vs Impressionist interpretations of The Bible.

When you say you take The Bible literally, some people (I'm addressing specifically fellow believers here) will then act like that means I'm not being logically consistent unless I think every figure of speech where God has wings means he's actually a giant bird.  No other book is treated this way, but whatever.

One Independent Baptist Pastor who's Church I attended a few times said he prefers to say he takes The Bible seriously rather then literally.  But that's being disingenuous, Allegorists believe they're taking Scripture seriously, in fact they argue we're not when we treat it like a Fantasy Novel.

And I'm not actually the most absolutely hyper literalist Christian anyway.  So I do somewhat struggle with how to define how I view Scripture.

Then Digibro who I follow for Anime reasons started a serious of videos categorizing the way different people think, both real and fictional.  The third video is the one to finally inspire me to make this post, it kind of presumes you saw the prior two longer ones but if your not interested in an hour of Digi categorizing every Anime character he cares about then you can skip them, the third one is only about 15 minutes.

How Anime Character Think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1ndTCR4aKg

Updating and Explaining
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSyGye7D2ao

Lexical vs Impressionistic Thinking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt60-Hf1Duk

[Update: You'll now have look for those on the InternetArchive.

https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Digibro%2FDigi%22

They have been reuploaded on YouTube including a channel called The Neurotypeline, who have this Playlist.  Also Digi now goes by Trixie since she came out as Trans.]

Now what I'm about to say is perhaps not where you thought I was going, but hyper Allegorical approaches to Scripture like those popularized by Origen and Augustine are in fact a highly Lexical approach.  It comes from thinking a certain word or string of words must always be saying the same thing or being said for the same reason.

Take for example when InspiringPhilosophy argues that because in many later Bible narratives someone goes to sleep before they have a dream that turns out to be a divine symbolic vision.  Then Adam going into a Deep Sleep in Genesis 2 must mean what follows is merely a symbolic vision.  When it seems to me far more obvious that God is putting Adam to sleep for the same reason any doctor puts a patient to sleep before performing an invasive surgery.

Some who you can argue are way more "Literalist" then I am are perhaps also hyper Lexical in their own way.  But once you decide a certain term must always be being used consistently, it's far easier to force an allegorical approach to an obviously literal passage then a literal approach to an obviously symbolic one.

Still the "Law of first mention" is an example of a highly lexical fallacy used by Christians of all camps.

Interpreting The Bible highly Lexically is a problem since obviously God is a more Impressionist thinker, He can communicate Lexically since the first words ever spoken were His words, and His Son is called The Word.  But He also existed before Words and I believe always wanted His message to be able to transcend the original language it was written in.

My Impressionist approach to Scripture can even allow me to view some entire books as fictional narratives that didn't necessarily actually happen, like Job and the Song of Songs.

But the general Impression of The Book Genesis is that it's telling us the actual origins of Humanity and Civilization and then more specifically The Israelite people.  That doesn't mean it's not also teaching important lessons, but they are important because they literally happened, it's documenting Humanity's first mistakes so we of later generations can try to learn from them.

The Hyper Allegorists are indeed perhaps also very Linear in thinking, you see contrary to how they often try to paint literalists, we are not denying the deeper truths that matter regardless of if it actually happened or not.  No most people labeled Literalists are the ones who understand a passage can serve different purposes at once.  Origen however was a bit more Lateral minded then his descendants.

Revelation is a book where no interpretation is free from some level of seemingly picking and choosing when to take it literally and when not to.  No one actually believes Revelation 13 is saying the world will be lead to worship Satan by a pair of Kaiiju.  But it's equally silly to then turn around and take nothing literally when the intent of The Book is still clearly that it's telling us what will happen in the future.

My Impressionist understanding of The Bible's meta-narrative is that the TNAK's prophecies of a future Temple or Tabernacle are fulfilled in The Church being The Temple of God, if that conflicts with taking certain passages literally even though they seemed literal at the time then so be it.  However I also believe we are a Temple still under-construction.

Part of why is because it is equally my Impressionist understanding of The Bible's meta-narrative that The Resurrection of The Dead is a physical bodily Resurrection, and so we are His Tabernacle already but we won't be a complete Temple until all Flesh is Resurrected.  Getting lexically lost in certain details of 1 Corinthians 15 is where the justification to Spiritualize The Resurrection comes from, but the closing verses finalize what the Impression is supposed to be.

And that leads me back to Universal Salvation and how we tend to discus it.  The clear Impression The Bible is trying to give about God's Character is that He is Love in 1 John, that His Love endures forever as the Psalms repeatedly claim.  That He is not willing that any should Perish as Matthew 18, 2 Peter 3 and 1 Timothy 2 make clear.

So who even cares if the word "Eternal" is a technically accurate translation in Matthew 25 or not.  When we remember that the Chapter Divisions weren't there originally so the start of Matthew 26 is indeed the close of that narrative, even that story in it's own Context is ending on The Impression that Jesus is about to take this Eternal Judgment upon himself.

It is the doctrines of Annihilation and Endless Torment that are dependent on the same Lexical obsessions that create allegorist heresies.  Yet we ourselves get bogged down in Lexical exercises trying to argue with them on their terms.

My own mind has too many Lexical tendencies, so on these blogs I will probably continue to employ Lexical methods in how I argue my views.   But the starting point should always understand that God is an Impressionist.  So the point of what's being said is more important then the details.

Pelagius was in error but it wasn't Free Will.

I've already shown that Free Will was taught by the Church before Pelagius.  And then contemporary with Pelagius, and not likely to have been influenced by him was Gregory of Nyssa who also taught Free Will.  And also Theodore of Mopseustia wrote against Augustine's understanding of Original Sin.

Calvanists love to use the condemnations Pelagius received from Councils against the doctrine of Free Will, and indeed Theodore was also condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (the Justinian Council as I call it) because of his association with Nestorianism.  But the seventh and last Ecumenical Council called Gregory the Father of Fathers and a Champion of the Faith.

I feel my fellow Protestant supporters of Free Will are a little too quick to seek to exonerate Pelagius.  Proving it existed before him is sufficient.  I in the past had been reluctant to say much one way or the other on Pelagius himself, but I've now done more research.

It is true that the views of Pelagius were often misrepresented by his critics.  Here is a quote from a letter he wrote to Augustine explicitly denying certain beliefs attributed to him.

Letters of Pelagius

“That Adam was created mortal, and that he would have died whether he had sinned or not sinned. That Adam’s sin
injured only himself, and not the human race. That the law, no less than the gospel, leads us to the kingdom. That
new-born infants are in the same condition that Adam was before he fell. That, on the one hand, the entire human
race does not die owing to Adam’s death and transgression; nor, on the other hand, does the whole human race rise
again through the resurrection of Christ. That infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life. That rich men,
even if they are baptized, unless they renounce and give up all, have, whatever good they may seem to have done,
nothing of it reckoned to them; neither shall they possess the kingdom of heaven.”

“All these statements have not been made by me, even on their own testimony, nor do I hold myself responsible for
them.”

The first Red Flag that Protestants should be weary of him is that he's clearly saying he does believe in Infant Baptism.  A subject which comes up again in his letter to Pope Innocent.

"[I have been] defamed by certain persons for [supposedly] refusing the sacrament of baptism to infants, and
promising the kingdom of heaven irrespective of Christ's redemption.  [I have] never heard even an impious heretic
say this about infants.  Who indeed is so unacquainted with Gospel lessons, as not only to attempt to make such an
affirmation, but even to be able to lightly say it or even let it enter his thought? And then who is so impious as to wish
to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven, by forbidding them to be baptized and to be born again in Christ?"

Now he's not necessarily saying he thinks Unbaptized Babies who die in infancy burn in Hell for Eternity, which Augustine certainly believed.  Just that they can't enter the Kingdom, which I in both my former and current Soterology distinguish from Salvation.  I don't think Water Baptism is necessary to enter The Kingdom, but I suspect the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is.

These quotes show how widespread Infant Baptism already was during an era when Council affirming Protestants want to think Catholic error hadn't really taken off yet.

YouTuber Ryan Reeves in his videos on Augustine wants to emphasize strongly the things he taught that are similar to Calvin and Luther and modern mainline Protestants, ignoring his teachings on Infant Baptism and The Virgin Mary.  And he totally misrepresents City of God ignoring it's Amillennial Statist bent.

Gregory of Nyssa's teaching on Baptism has been interpreted as opposing Infant Baptism, but I'm unsure, even Gregory wasn't perfect.

We don't have Pleagius On Nature in full, just quotations of it, so maybe this was misrepresented, but if it's Authentic it's a pretty major issue.  It's quote number 42 on this web page.

[In regards to the passage which states ‘By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men; in which all have sinned. As by the offence of one, upon all men [came a bringing] to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One, upon all men [came a bringing] unto justification of life (Rom. 10:3-4).’ I teach that] there can be no doubt that not all men are sanctified by the righteousness of Christ, but only those who are willing to obey Him, and have been cleansed in the washing of His baptism [thus there can be no doubt that not all men are sinners, but only those who are willing to disobey him.]"

For some reason, what I Copy/Pasted says Romans 10 when this quote of Paul is actually from Romans 5, verses 15-18.

Now I will say that Pelagius in a way is closer to being right on this passage then Protestants (especially Calvinists) who believe in Eternal Damnation.  He at least recognizes that you can't interpret the amount of people the word "all" refers to differently for Christ then you do for Adam, and you certainly can't make it a smaller number when it refers to Jesus.

I however strongly believe that yes ultimately all are Made Righteous by Christ, in agreement with Gregory of Nyssa.

Some might argue verse 19 supports Pelagius interpretation, as there we see many and not all.  But that verse also stresses that it is the Obedience of Jesus that matters.

I can maybe sympathize with Pelagius when he's just arguing against Augustine's pessimism towards the ability of Believers to live exemplary lives.  But the above quote does show that he's trying to wiggle around the clear teaching of "all have sinned and fallen short" so that he can propose a works based Salvation.

Defenders of Pelagius love to appeal to the Synod of Diospolis.  I agree it was unfair of Councils he wasn't able to defend himself at to Condemn him.  But we can read much of what transpired at the Synod of Diospolis.  And to some extent his exoneration here was a result of his being very slick.

First however, on the subject of Free Will itself.

Synod: Let another section be read.  [It was then read from his book that] ‘all men are ruled by their own will.’

Pelagius: This I stated in the interest of free will. God is its helper whenever it chooses good; man, however, when
sinning is himself in fault, as under the direction of a free will.

Synod: Nor again is this opposed to the doctrine of the Church.

Wasn't even much of a dispute, this one was probably only an accusation because Augustine insisted on it.

The problems emerge in what is said next.

Synod: [Pelagius has written in his book that] ‘In the day of judgment no forbearance will be shown to the ungodly and
the sinners, but they will be consumed in eternal fires.’  [To this Synod this statement seems to be worded in such a
way as to imply that all sinners whatever were to be punished with an eternal punishment, without excepting even
those who hold Christ as their foundation, although ‘they build thereupon wood, hay, stubble,’ concerning whom the
apostle writes: ‘If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he shall himself be saved, yet so as by fire.’]

Pelagius: I made this assertion in accordance with the Gospel, in which it is written concerning sinners, ‘These shall
go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.’  [He] who believes differently is an Origenist.

Synod: [What you are saying then is] not opposed to the Church.

What's in [] here seems like it's added commentary from this website, which annoys me that they mislead me into thinking the Synod used that verse of 1 Corinthians 3.

Pelagius did not even really address the Synod's concern, or try to figure out what their concern was, and I suspect they backed down only because of his using Origenist as a slur.  Already people were using the other things Origen was wrong on to smear all Universalsim by affiliation.  The Synod should have responded by mentioning men like Gregory of Nyssa.

Pelagius was from the West, and so a Latin translation of Matthew 25 was probably the basis of how he understood it.

Basically the Synod should have grilled him harder on what his Soterology actually was.  There was no attempt to make sure he understood that Salvation is not by Works.  Instead they just allowed him to say his teaching had some basis in some Scripture.

Also what I quoted above from On Nature was not brought up in this Council or in the Statement of Faith he sent to the Pope to gain his approval.

The Council of Orange ultimately Condemned Augustine's Doctrine as much as it did Pelagianism.

It defined that faith, though a free act, resulted even in its beginnings from the grace of God, enlightening the human mind and enabling belief.^[4][5][6] However, it also explicitly denied double predestination (of the equal-ultimacy variety), stating, "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."

Still even that Council made rulings I disagree with.  I only bring them up because Calvanists keep acting like these Councils affirm Calvanism.

The Pelagius-Augustine conflict perfectly anticipates the modern Arminian-Calvanism dispute in that both begin with a false belief that some people won't be saved.

Early Christian Schisms on the Nature of Christ

This blog Post is partly my thoughts on Extra Credits series of YouTube videos on the Subject of Early Christian Schisms.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5A2WfrnfPglTL_ZCPDN_rDT

They made that series partly to provide background for their earlier series on Justinian and Theodora.  My own opinion on Justinian isn't nearly so positive as theirs.

They covered this subject from a Secular perspective, not really interested in which position in these disputes The Bible agrees with.  And that's fine, an outsider perspective on Christianity can be very useful.  So I'm going to take it on myself to provide my Biblically influenced personal perspective.  Though the issue central to the last episode, episode IV, is primarily what I'll be talking about.

The first three episodes are all about disputes where who won in the end I feel is pretty strongly agreed to be the Biblically supported position.  Most Christians speaking negatively of the Council of Nicea do so from not knowing what that Council actually debated.  Last month I did posts on The Council of Nicea and the Homoousion Doctrine partly in preparation for this post.

I feel they should have had another episode between the Council of Nicea episode and the Nestorian controversy episode (Episodes III and IV) on the Pelegian controversy.  The chief opponent of Pelagius was Augustine of Hippo, a man I have little fondness for.

Some people think what Pelagius taught has been misrepresented by his opponents.

Recent analysis of his thinking suggests that it was, in fact, highly orthodox, following in the tradition established by the early fathers and in keeping with the teaching of the church in both the East and the West. ... From what we are able to piece together from the few sources available... it seems that the Celtic monk held to an orthodox view of the prevenience of God's grace, and did not assert that individuals could achieve salvation purely by their own efforts...^{[ Bradley, Ian (1993) The Celtic Way. London: Darton, Longman and Todd; p. 62]}

Free Will is definitely a Biblically supported Doctrine.  Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote "two tomes against him who asserts that sin is inherent in human nature." Which was no doubt an attack on Augustine of Hippo.

The controversy central to the final video of this series was a three way dispute about how Jesus Divine and Human natures relate to each other.

1. The Chalcedonian position, that Jesus had two different but unified or mixed natures, a Divine Nature and a Human Nature.

2. The Nestorian position, that Jesus had two distinct and separate natures, a Divine Nature and a Human Nature.

3.  The Monophysite position, that Jesus had one single Nature that was both Divine and Human.
   (Monophysite was often used broadly to include other groups that wouldn't have called themselves that.  I personally find the best form of Monophysitism to be Miaphysitism.)

All three agree that Jesus was both Divine and Human, and not in a Greek demigod half-god/half-man sense, but fully Divine and Fully Human.  I personally find the differences between these three views to be quite semantical and not a big deal.  Especially since I'm not sure what my own view is.  But it seems in Christianized Rome is was a pretty big deal.

Last month I expressed support for Traducianism on the issue of how most Human Soul/Spirits are created. Even that doesn't settle the issue.  At fist glance it would seemingly help the Chalcedonian position, a Human Nature inherited from Mary mixed with a Divine Nature provided by the Holy Spirit.  But a Monophysite or Miaphysite would retort that we don't refer to most Humans as having two natures, a Paternal one and a Maternal one, but as having one.  Perhaps the Nestorian position would be the hardest to make compatible with Traducianism, but I don't think impossible.

Pretty much all major Christian denominations in the West are considered nominally Chalcedonian (Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, all major Protestants denomination as well as Baptists, Pentecostals, and Evangelicals).  Even though I don't think most average Christians or even Pastors in America have ever actually thought about what their position on this debate would be.

One reason why I think Protestants and Evangelicals should take a second look at this History is because of how much the inciting incident was Nestorius (and it seems even some Monophysites) objected to calling Mary "Theotokos" (God Bearer) a Title that definitely plays into her quasi-Deification.  And it seems Nestorius may have inherited this from his mentor Theodore of Mopsuestia.

As someone who likes to draw attention to overlooked Historically important Women, I wish the Extra Credits video on his controversy had talked about some of the Women who were important to these events.  Theodosius II's sister Pulcheria worked with Cyril of Alexandria strongly supporting the Chalceodnian position, and was a strong supporter of calling Mary Theotokos.  While his wife Aelia Eudocia was a Monophysite who opposed calling Mary Theotokos.

I'm not sure why the Monophosytes would oppose that title for Mary, I mean as an Evangelical I can see why even some Cahcledonians wouldn't like it.  But as far as it being used as a rallying point in this dispute, I don't really get it.

If the Chalcedonian position is correct, it's unfortunate it had such horrible representatives during this time period.  Cyril of Alexandria was very Anti-Semtic and generally in support of persecuting non-Believers.  However as I expressed before, I blame these negative traits more on his belief in Eternal Damnation.

So again I'm not entirely sure what my position is.  I'll stick with being Nominally Chalcedonian for the time being.  Nesotrianism can be the most interesting historically to look into, and I may definitely have more to say about that subject on this Blog in the future.

What do I think of the Doctine of Traducianism?

I'm not sure.  But I'm kind of leaning towards it.

Traducianism

"In Christian theology, traducianism is a doctrine about the origin of the soul (or synonymously, "spirit"), holding that this immaterial aspect is transmitted through natural generation along with the body, the material aspect of human beings. That is, an individual's soul is derived from the souls of the individual's parents.^[1] This implies that only the soul of Adam was created directly by God (with Eve's substance, material and immaterial, being taken from out of Adam), in contrast with the idea of creationism of soul (not to be confused with creationism as a belief about the origin of the material universe), which holds that all souls are created directly by God (with Eve's substance, material and immaterial, being taken from out of Adam).^[2]"

In other words the Soul/Spirit reproduces the same way our bodies do.

This isn't like my other blog posts.  I don't have much of my own insights to add.  So I'll be quoting Wikipedia's section on the Biblical Arguments for it.

Supporters of traducianism present arguments from the Bible such as the following:

• Begetting includes the image and likeness of God (Genesis 5:3), but since God is spirit, this must mean the immaterial aspect of human beings.
• God's creation is finished (Genesis 2:2), thus no new souls are created directly, but are instead transmitted by natural generation just as the body is.
• Creationism destroys the idea of the miraculous and supernatural, since it incorporates God's supernatural, miraculous creation of the soul (out of nothing or himself) into the natural process of reproduction. This is inherently contradictory, since it makes that which is against natural law a part of nature: it is against natural law that something is created out of nothing.
• God created all things "very good" (Genesis 1:31), yet many Christians understand the Bible to teach that after the fall, all are sinful at birth (Job 14:1-4; 15:14; Psalm 58:3; John 3:6) and from conception (Psalm 51:5). Since most theologians hold that God would not have created something sinful, it follows that souls are not created directly but are generated. Those who adhere to Roman Catholicism believe that it is possible for God to create a soul that simultaneously takes on a fallen nature, much like He can create a soul that simultaneously is prevented from taking on a fallen nature (see The Immaculate Conception); this view is not typically held by Protestants or other Christian denominations.
• Genesis 46:26 can be understood to teach that souls are already present in the loins, and Hebrews 7:10 ("When Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.") seems to take this view.
• In Genesis 6, some interpreters see the traducian model as the best explanation for the begetting of monstrous offspring with human bodies and demonic souls by the angels that took wives of the daughters of men. The soul-creationist's difficulty of God creating souls for such monsters may be why most later churchmen rejected the literal interpretation of Genesis 6 as referring to angels interbreeding with human women.

The first of these arguments is perhaps the least likely one I'd use myself, since it sounds like diminishing the significance of our Physical Bodies being Made in God's Image.  The last one I'm also hesitant to use since my position on the Genesis 6 issue has become complicated.  And the third isn't much of a Biblical argument at all.  But the rest are pretty solid.

The Wikipedia section on the arguments against it don't mention any that impress me.

This view was supported by Augustine of Hippo.  A person I have generally emphasized my disagreements with in the past.  But I've never said he was wrong on everything.  Similar with Tertulian though I have recently questioned how sure we are he wasn't a Universalist.  Gregory of Nyssa was a Universalist who supported Traducianism.

Incest and The Law of Moses

My previous Incest in The Bible post I still want to be my definitive discussion of the topic.  What I'm going to argue here I'm not definitively arguing for.  It's somewhat Rhetorical.  But I can't say I entirely don't actually agree with it either.  It's a complicated matter.

In my discussions with those who strongly believes Christians are still supposed to follow the Law of Moses.  I see them misusing Malachi's "God doesn't Change" quote.

Which bugs me because Augustine of Hippo, when he was a Manichean still, cited the fact that the Old Testament depicted an Emotional God who changes as what he was mainly uncomfortable with, and why he was drawn to sects that depicted that God as Evil.  It was Ambrose convincing him those changes could be allegorized away that convinced him to convert to "Orthodox" Christianity.  And thus Augustine because the chief popularizer of many Quasi Gnostic heresies I've been fighting on this Blog.

Malachi's point had nothing to do with whether or not what God permits us to do can change.  It mostly has to do with that He keeps His Word.  God repents of things often in the Old Testament (Repent means a change of mind), but when He swears an oath He won't Repent.  The immediate context was promising the children of Jacob they will not be consumed.

So to point out the absurdity of this misuse I created the following Image via Meme Generator.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7329/27275013204_7f6d7bfc96_o.jpg

That was the most shocking example.  I also brought up the evidence that Capital Punishment and eating meat wasn't allowed before the Flood but were after.  Arguing God's laws had changed a few times before we even left the Torah (or more strictly speaking before we reached it).

On those latter two issues however they had arguments against the notion that those things were treated differently before the Flood.  I forget what the argument on Capital punishment was.  But for the eating meat they basically felt the allusions to Animal Sacrifice in the Pre-Flood world implied eating Meat.  And I think there was an appeal to the heretical Book of Enoch.  I was and still am unconvinced of those arguments, but at least they made fairly Biblically based arguments.

On the Incest issue however they just cited the common argument from my fellow Young Earth Creationists that the supposed Genetic Risks from Inbreeding simply weren't a factor till many generations after the Flood.  And while I'm as inclined as ever to agree with that argument scientifically.  It's not a directly Biblical argument.

And either way it doesn't change that God's Law apparently changed.  It changing with a reason doesn't undermine the comparison to things changing at the Cross and/or Pentecost.  That event is what all History revolves around according to our world view.  There was as good a reason then as there ever was to change some things.

Now to get to the main topic of this post.  As I was laughing to myself at their failure to even make an argument.  I went and came up with an argument for them.  This has been in my mind for months, over a year actually, I just kept putting off making a post on it.

The wording in Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy on the Incest restrictions is strictly speaking about Sex not Marriage.  And I have shown Biblically that not all Sex Outside Marriage is a Sin.  And that it's mostly potentially reproductive Sex God puts restrictions on.

So one then could make the argument that when you marry someone your relation to them legally changes, and they are now your Wife not your distant-Cousin-as-a-fellow-descendant-of-Noah or Sister.

Now I know that sounds kinda like a Loop Hole.

My argument about the very differently worded verses alleged to condemn all Homosexuality also get accused of being a Loop Hole, but they're not.  The issue there is that only someone with a very modern way of thinking about Sexuality would read that as condemning all Same-Sex affection to begin with.  When dealing with other commands in the Torah, all both Jewish and Christian scholars agree if there is a qualifying statement, it's condemning only where the qualifier applies.  "Don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk" is not condemning all boiling or even all boiling of kids (nor does it condemn Cheeseburgers as some Rabbis think).  It's condemning a specific Canaanite practice that we now know quite a bit about thanks to the Ugarit texts.

But even if it is a Loop Hole.  If God's Word has Loop Holes they are there for a reason.  When I look at Chuck Missler's argument about how God worked around the Curse on Jechoniah, it sounds like God loves taking advantage of his own loop holes.

I've done a post on why Amnon's Sin was mainly Rape, and the incestuous part was incidental.  And I even then talked about how what Tamar says in II Samuel 13:12-13 seemingly ignores that marrying your Sister is supposed to be illegal.  Now I am iffy on building doctrine on something a girl says to ward off unwanted advances.  But it is still there in the text that theoretically David might have let Amnon marry Tamar if he simply asked.  It kinda parallels an aspect of what God via Nathan says to David when exposing his Sins against Uriah The Hittite.

More interesting however is the second witness I have.

Now much has been written about how in the Song of Solomon, The Beloved poetically called Shulamith his Sister.  I've seen people argue "Sister" is simply a misleading translation, and that I don't buy.

I am NOT about to argue they were literally Brother and Sister, I stand by my earlier post on the Song of Solomon where I argue Shulamith is Shelomith daughter of Rehoboam and Granddaughter of Solomon, and The Beloved a humble Shepard not of Royal Blood.

I am aware that some of the arguments against them being actually Brother and Sister could be explained away by them being half siblings, same father and different mothers.  But my ultimate conclusion remains the same as it was in those posts, largely because I see no evidence of the Beloved being Royalty.

The key factor is Song of Solomon Chapter 8 Verse 1, where Shulamith is talking.  This verse tells us a few things.

"O that thou wert as my brother, that sucked the breasts of my mother! when I should find thee without, I would kiss thee; yea, I should not be despised."

It clearly says they are not brother and sister.  But at the same time she says she wishes he was?  Like it would easier if he was?  And it makes sense with her being Royalty and him not since patriarchal societies tend to be less tolerant of women marrying below their station then men.  Princesses are usually either married into other Royal families, or if incest is allowed they marry within their own.  Egypt isn't the only ancient Monarchy to practice Royal Incest, they were just different in making it almost completely required.

There is kind of a New Testament passage I could mention, but it's very iffy to build doctrine on since it partly depends on bringing in sources outside of The Bible.   Acts 25 starting in verse 13 through to the end of chapter 26.

If Acts was our only source of information on these people, you'd never know that Agrippa and Berenice were brother and sister, you would assume Berenice was Agrippa's wife though she's not explicitly called that either, it reflects that she was being treated as Agrippa's Queen.  Still their Incestuous relationship would have been fairly well known to Luke's initial first century audience.  So that no judgment is passed on it is interesting, in fact Paul tells Agrippa that he knows Agrippa is learned in the Scriptures and believes the Prophets.

A lot has been speculated on concerning Luke's relationship to Josephus, those late dating Luke say it must have depended on Josephus, others say they must have used some common sources.  And the subject of Agirppa and Berenice is part of that discussion.  Josephus is quite condemning of them, but I can't help but wonder how much even that was more his Greco-Roman Audience's attitudes towards Incest then a Jewish one.  Luke in addition to being not so harsh to them is also kinder to Felix and Drusilla in Acts 24 (Drusilla was another sister of Agrippa and Berenice) then Josephus was.

This all happens to fit in well with a post I did in September 2015 on my Prophecy Blog on the subject of The Man Child being The Church.  [However now that September 2015 post is kind of defunct cause of how my view of The Bride of Christ has changed.]

Mainly my point here is, to Hebrew Roots Christians, either argue that Marrying your Brother or Sister isn't prohibited, or stop the "God Never Changes his laws" argument.  You can't have it both ways.

There were a variety of views in The Early Church

Back when I just believed in Eternal Security, I expressed annoyance at those who act like a view didn't exist in the Early Church if apparently no "Early Church Fathers" advocated for it.  When those same people refereed to lots of views existing besides their own.

There is no Biblical support for a notion that the majority will be right.  But even so who's to say the Church Fathers were the majority?  The warning against the Doctrine of the Nicolatians tells me that those who'd obtain that title should not be inherently more trusted.  But they were the only ones who could write and so their sides of the arguments are what were preserved.  We have no way of knowing how much the people in their own flocks even agreed with them.

I want to quote from a "Church Father" who I disagree with possibly the most of anyone, who's soterology certainly is not mine, being the prototype of Calvinism.

 St Augustine (c.354-43): "There are very many ('imo quam plurimi', which can be translated majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." (Enchiria, ad Laurent. c. 29)

This is backed up by Basil.

St. Basil the Great: (c. 329-379): "The mass of men say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished." (De Asceticis)

Augustine of Hippo in his work City of God: Book 21 Chapters 17-22 describes six views on eternal punishment he disagrees with.  The first two are forms of what we would today call Universal Reconciliation.  The next three are forms of "Once Saved Always Saved".  The last one is something of a works salvation view.

Chapter 17.— Of Those Who Fancy that No Men Shall Be Punished Eternally.

I must now, I see, enter the lists of amicable controversy with those tender-hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or that all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or shorter according to the amount of each man's sin. In respect of this matter, Origen was even more indulgent; for he believed that even the devil himself and his angels, after suffering those more severe and prolonged pains which their sins deserved, should be delivered from their torments, and associated with the holy angels. But the Church, not without reason, condemned him for this and other errors, especially for his theory of the ceaseless alternation of happiness and misery, and the interminable transitions from the one state to the other at fixed periods of ages; for in this theory he lost even the credit of being merciful, by allotting to the saints real miseries for the expiation of their sins, and false happiness, which brought them no true and secure joy, that is, no fearless assurance of eternal blessedness. Very different, however, is the error we speak of, which is dictated by the tenderness of these Christians who suppose that the sufferings of those who are condemned in the judgment will be temporary, while the blessedness of all who are sooner or later set free will be eternal. Which opinion, if it is good and true because it is merciful, will be so much the better and truer in proportion as it becomes more merciful. Let, then, this fountain of mercy be extended, and flow forth even to the lost angels, and let them also be set free, at least after as many and long ages as seem fit! Why does this stream of mercy flow to all the human race, and dry up as soon as it reaches the angelic? And yet they dare not extend their pity further, and propose the deliverance of the devil himself. Or if any one is bold enough to do so, he does indeed put to shame their charity, but is himself convicted of error that is more unsightly, and a wresting of God's truth that is more perverse, in proportion as his clemency of sentiment seems to be greater.

He mentions Origen, but distinguishes Origen from most who hold views like this for reasons partly similar to what I expressed in the supplemental part of the post I made yesterday.

Now when I had long ago on forums dealt with enemies of Eternal Security on the subject of the parts I'll get to later, one who emphasized the "Pre-Nicean Fathers" said Augustine is post-Nicean.  In this case we see with Origen that who he speaks of existed before Nicea and Constantine.  And expressed things in a way where it seems like Origen's version didn't come first, since he went further with it.  If Origen came before the others he'd have said they didn't go as far.

There is no source outside Augustine for saying Origen was condemned for this.  He wasn't formally condemned at all till later then Augustine.  And Origen's earliest critics were far more concerned with his other more Platonic teachings.  It is in those areas that Augustine rather resembles Origen suspiciously enough.

Chapter 18.— Of Those Who Fancy That, on Account of the Saints' Intercession, Man Shall Be Damned in the Last Judgment.

There are others, again, with whose opinions I have become acquainted in conversation, who, though they seem to reverence the holy Scriptures, are yet of reprehensible life, and who accordingly, in their own interest, attribute to God a still greater compassion towards men. For they acknowledge that it is truly predicted in the divine word that the wicked and unbelieving are worthy of punishment, but they assert that, when the judgment comes, mercy will prevail. For, say they, God, having compassion on them, will give them up to the prayers and intercessions of His saints. For if the saints used to pray for them when they suffered from their cruel hatred, how much more will they do so when they see them prostrate and humble suppliants? For we cannot, they say, believe that the saints shall lose their bowels of compassion when they have attained the most perfect and complete holiness; so that they who, when still sinners, prayed for their enemies, should now, when they are freed from sin, withhold from interceding for their suppliants. Or shall God refuse to listen to so many of His beloved children, when their holiness has purged their prayers of all hindrance to His answering them? And the passage of the psalm which is cited by those who admit that wicked men and infidels shall be punished for a long time, though in the end delivered from all sufferings, is claimed also by the persons we are now speaking of as making much more for them. The verse runs: Shall God forget to be gracious? Shall He in anger shut up His tender mercies? His anger, they say, would condemn all that are unworthy of everlasting happiness to endless punishment. But if He suffer them to be punished for a long time, or even at all, must He not shut up His tender mercies, which the Psalmist implies He will not do? For he does not say, Shall He in anger shut up His tender mercies for a long period? But he implies that He will not shut them up at all.
And they deny that thus God's threat of judgment is proved to be false even though He condemn no man, any more than we can say that His threat to overthrow Nineveh was false, though the destruction which was absolutely predicted was not accomplished. For He did not say, Nineveh shall be overthrown if they do not repent and amend their ways, but without any such condition He foretold that the city should be overthrown. And this prediction, they maintain, was true because God predicted the punishment which they deserved, although He was not to inflict it. For though He spared them on their repentance yet He was certainly aware that they would repent, and, notwithstanding, absolutely and definitely predicted that the city should be overthrown. This was true, they say, in the truth of severity, because they were worthy of it; but in respect of the compassion which checked His anger, so that He spared the suppliants from the punishment with which He had threatened the rebellious, it was not true. If, then, He spared those whom His own holy prophet was provoked at His sparing, how much more shall He spare those more wretched suppliants for whom all His saints shall intercede? And they suppose that this conjecture of theirs is not hinted at in Scripture, for the sake of stimulating many to reformation of life through fear of very protracted or eternal sufferings, and of stimulating others to pray for those who have not reformed. However, they think that the divine oracles are not altogether silent on this point; for they ask to what purpose is it said, How great is Your goodness which You have hidden for them that fear You, if it be not to teach us that the great and hidden sweetness of God's mercy is concealed in order that men may fear? To the same purpose they think the apostle said, For God has concluded all men in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all, Romans 11:32 signifying that no one should be condemned by God. And yet they who hold this opinion do not extend it to the acquittal or liberation of the devil and his angels. Their human tenderness is moved only towards men, and they plead chiefly their own cause, holding out false hopes of impunity to their own depraved lives by means of this quasi compassion of God to the whole race. Consequently they who promise this impunity even to the prince of the devils and his satellites make a still fuller exhibition of the mercy of God.

This view seems to be based on saying no one even temporarily enters the Lake of Fire.  The logic of it I do like and understand and can play a role in my argument.  But I'm still more like the first group.

Augustine seems to be confused by the notion of allowing Universal Reconciliation to all humans but not including The Devil and Fallen Angels.  I'm not entirely sure what I think on that issue.  But the difference between them and Human Beings is Human Beings are Blood Relations of Jesus as children of Adam.

Chapter 19.— Of Those Who Promise Impunity from All Sins Even to Heretics, Through Virtue of Their Participation of the Body of Christ.

So, too, there are others who promise this deliverance from eternal punishment, not, indeed, to all men, but only to those who have been washed in Christian baptism, and who become partakers of the body of Christ, no matter how they have lived, or what heresy or impiety they have fallen into. They ground this opinion on the saying of Jesus, This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. John 6:50-51 Therefore, say they, it follows that these persons must be delivered from death eternal, and at one time or other be introduced to everlasting life.

Chapter 20.— Of Those Who Promise This Indulgence Not to All, But Only to Those Who Have Been Baptized as Catholics, Though Afterwards They Have Broken Out into Many Crimes and Heresies.

There are others still who make this promise not even to all who have received the sacraments of the baptism of Christ and of His body, but only to the Catholics, however badly they have lived. For these have eaten the body of Christ, not only sacramentally but really, being incorporated in His body, as the apostle says, We, being many, are one bread, one body; 1 Corinthians 10:17 so that, though they have afterwards lapsed into some heresy, or even into heathenism and idolatry, yet by virtue of this one thing, that they have received the baptism of Christ, and eaten the body of Christ, in the body of Christ, that is to say, in the Catholic Church, they shall not die eternally, but at one time or other obtain eternal life; and all that wickedness of theirs shall not avail to make their punishment eternal, but only proportionately long and severe.

Chapter 21.— Of Those Who Assert that All Catholics Who Continue in the Faith Even Though by the Depravity of Their Lives They Have Merited Hell Fire, Shall Be Saved on Account of the Foundation Of Their Faith.

There are some, too, who found upon the expression of Scripture, He that endures to the end shall be saved, Matthew 24:13 and who promise salvation only to those who continue in the Catholic Church; and though such persons have lived badly, yet, say they, they shall be saved as by fire through virtue of the foundation of which the apostle says, For other foundation has no man laid than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day of the Lord shall declare it, for it shall be revealed by fire; and each man's work shall be proved of what sort it is. If any man's work shall endure which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. But if any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 They say, accordingly, that the Catholic Christian, no matter what his life be, has Christ as his foundation, while this foundation is not possessed by any heresy which is separated from the unity of His body.  And therefore, through virtue of this foundation, even though the Catholic Christian by the inconsistency of his life has been as one building up wood, hay, stubble, upon it, they believe that he shall be saved by fire, in other words, that he shall be delivered after tasting the pain of that fire to which the wicked shall be condemned at the last judgment.

Now to the people I alluded to before who say this doesn't prove Eternal Security existed before Nicea.  Well for one I have a quote of Origen I'd mentioned in an old post where he attacks people who seemed to believe in some form of Eternal Security.

But I'd also say that Augustine wasn't that long after Nicea, it's silly to suggest three different forms of this could develop entirely in that short a period of time and become significant enough for Augustine to find worth addressing.

Chapter 22.— Of Those Who Fancy that the Sins Which are Intermingled with Alms-Deeds Shall Not Be Charged at the Day of Judgment.

I have also met with some who are of opinion that such only as neglect to cover their sins with almsdeeds shall be punished in everlasting fire; and they cite the words of the Apostle James, He shall have judgment without mercy who has shown no mercy. James 2:13 Therefore, say they, he who has not amended his ways, but yet has intermingled his profligate and wicked actions with works of mercy, shall receive mercy in the judgment, so that he shall either quite escape condemnation, or shall be liberated from his doom after some time shorter or longer. They suppose that this was the reason why the Judge Himself of quick and dead declined to mention anything else than works of mercy done or omitted, when awarding to those on His right hand life eternal, and to those on His left everlasting punishment. Matthew 25:33 To the same purpose, they say, is the daily petition we make in the Lord's prayer, Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Matthew 6:12 For, no doubt, whoever pardons the person who has wronged him does a charitable action. And this has been so highly commended by the Lord Himself, that He says, For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 6:14-15 And so it is to this kind of almsdeeds that the saying of the Apostle James refers, He shall have judgment without mercy that has shown no mercy. And our Lord, they say, made no distinction of great and small sins, but Your Father will forgive your sins, if you forgive men theirs. Consequently they conclude that, though a man has led an abandoned life up to the last day of it, yet whatsoever his sins have been, they are all remitted by virtue of this daily prayer, if only he has been mindful to attend to this one thing, that when they who have done him any injury ask his pardon, he forgive them from his heart.

And that last one is a works Salvation view basically.  Easy enough to refute.  But Augustine's objection to it is the opposite of mine.

Chapters 23-27 are Augustine giving his counter arguments to these.  I don't feel like addressing those here, maybe in a future follow up post.  Needless to say much of it comes down to Augustine not knowing Greek and going by flawed Latin translations of Aionion as Eternal.

My objective today is just to show that a variety of views existed.

Plato, Augustine and Traditional Christianity (On YouTube)

[Update: this is out of date.]

Plato, Augustine, and Traditional Christianity

[Update: This is out of date.]

Appealing to the Early Church Fathers

In the letters to the Seven Churches there is only one Doctrine Jesus said he hates.  The Doctrine of the Nicolatians.  Which means "conquerors of the lay people".

Appealing to Church Authority or Tradition, no matter how old, is this Doctrine.  Yet even people who are correct in identifying what that doctrine is fall into the trap of doing just that.

People want to cite various passages from The Epistles foretelling the arising of False Doctrines as relevant to their objections to what are viewed as inherently modern heresies.  But Paul said ravenous wolves would arise teaching these doctrines as soon as he departed (Acts 20:29).  And he dealt with people teaching wrong things during his life also, as did John. 

There is a tendency to view Catholicism as beginning with Constantine, but that's not true.  Pergamos had all the basic qualities of Catholicism when Revelation was written.  All the people we call Early Church Fathers were trying to reconcile Christianity with Rome.  The book called 1 Clement teaches Apostolic succession and the supremacy of the Roman Bishop is heavily implied.

Critics of Eternal Security love to insist no one taught it before Calvin, and the non Calivnist form (what I believe) emerged in America in the 1800s.

Clement of Rome is the only of the "Apostalic fathers" who's words we have directly that we have Scriptural verification did in fact know the Apostles.  Ignatias and Polycorp we think knew them based on their own word or their followers words.  Only First Clement is legit, the other works attributed to him are forgeries.

But even in First Clement he's teaching Apostolic Succession, that's the point of the letter actually.  And implying the supremacy of Rome since he thinks it's his business to tell the Corinthians what to do.  And he believed the pagan myth of the Phoenix to be true, he cited it as a fact and tried using it prove a point.

Still, Clement did teach by Faith Alone how Protestants and Evangelicals define it in chapters 32-33.  And the things quoted from him used against Eternal Security do not really say that, he encourages us to do good works, but says nothing to imply he thinks it's possible for a person to be Saved yet later wind him in Hell.

As I said in an earlier post the epistle of Barnabas was not written by Barnabas.  That epistle fails to even properly teach Salvation by Faith alone.

Maybe it is true all the Church Fathers seem to have been unanimous against Eternal Security.  But to say the doctrine didn't exist is wrong. Origen clearly refers to it being taught by "Heretics".

“Certain ones of those [heretics] who hold different opinions misuse these passages. They essentially destroy free will be introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost.” ~ Origen (c. 225)

At first glance this might sound like the Claivnist form.  But he may have been misrepresenting what they taught.  And on the incapable of Salvation part he perhaps only meant what many non Calvinists theorize about the Unpardonable Sin (that a person can become "Reprobate" and unsaveble).  Or it could be these were two beliefs Origen considered wrong "Belief in Salvation that can't be lost, and belief in people who can't be saved", that he affiliates with each other here, but weren't necessarily believed by the same people, or at least not always.

History is written by the winners.  The Nag Hamadi collection seems to have shown Irenaeus to have been basically accurate in how he represented the Gnostics (his critics nitpick some things he said of course).  The problem is there is a tendency to confuse the Gnostics with other groups.  And that may have existed among some of their contemporary critics as well.

My point is, we should maybe consider that some groups like the Montanists were completely misrepresented.   And perhaps were really hated mainly for believing in Eternal Security, and/or that the Covenant with Israel as a nation still stood.  Or simply in some way threatening the church hierarchy.

If you're against Replacement Theology and appeal to the Church Fathers in opposition to Eternal Security, you're a hypocrite.  They were equally unanimous on that.  Likewise if you believe in Eternal Security and appeal to the Church Fathers to back up your support of Replacement theology.

And if you disagree with them on either of those positions, but especially both, and then appeal to the Church Fathers to express your disagreement with my views on Sexual Morality, especially Homosexuality.  You're very hypocritical.  Because there is far less they said on Homosexuality then on those issues.  See the Post I already linked back to.

Also if KJV only you shouldn't like the Church Fathers on the Old Testament, they favored the Septuagint over the Masoretic text. until Jerome at least.

I don't question any of their salvation, many were Martyred for the Faith and I don't consider it possible for a fake believer to become a Martyr.  But they were not Biblically sound.

Eternal Security is perhaps a more valid issue to consider them relevant.  Since those who hold it see it as foundational to the Gospel itself.  But to me the evidence it existed is sufficient.

At least one Early Church Father's main quote on saying Salvation can be lost is one that most honest opponents to Eternal Security must agree is the weakest of all verses they use.  The phrase "He that Endureth to the End shall be Saved" from Matthew 10 and 24, which are Eschatological and about surviving Persecution to be Saved by Christ's return, NOT Eternal Salvation.  And even then the verses don't say who doesn't wont be saved, that's just something read into it.  The point is that failing to endure isn't Sin in those verses but dying.

The point is, no matter how unanimous Church Opinions may have seemed.  Scripture alone is the Inspired Infallible Word of God.

I don't know whether or not John Chrysostom believed in Eternal Security.  But he does have a quote that speaks to how I'd respond to those who view Calvinism and Eternal Security inseparable.  Who assert that you can't believe we're Saved by our Free Will if we can't also lose it.

“All is in God’s power, but so that our free-will is not lost...it depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first choose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free-will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help...It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God’s to perfect and bring to the end.” (On Hebrews, Homily 12)

Here is another blogger on this subject.  But I do not agree with everything he says. Here is one on what I must qualify is a Calvinist blog.  It's about Justification by Faith alone not specifically Eternal Security.  But some quotes alluding to it's existence are there.  Contrary to Catholic and Orthodox critics the Early Church absolutely DID teach Justification by Faith Alone, as we Evangelicals define it.  Here the same Calvinist blog deals with Eternal Security.

My annoyance on the Eternal Security issue is how the mere fact that the Church Fathers themselves didn't teach it is considered proof that it didn't exist, and yet I have found examples of those same Church Father teaching against it.

Augustine of Hippo in City of God, 21:17-27 addresses many varied views of Salvation that existed at this time.  In 26 he says.

"But, say they, the catholic Christians have Christ for a foundation, and they have not fallen away from union with Him, no matter how depraved a life they have built on this foundation, as wood, hay, stubble; and accordingly the well-directed faith by which Christ is their foundation will suffice to deliver them some time from the continuance of that fire, though it be with loss, since those things they have built on it shall be burned. Let the Apostle James summarily reply to them: ‘If any man say he has faith, and have not works, can faith save him?’”

His misuse of James here is common in modern attacks on Eternal Security and Salvation by Faith alone.  He is quoting a question not an answer.

After Augustine's day, Bede writes against those who believe "that it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things, as long as they believe in Christ, because salvation is through faith" (JPJ, 31).

Jerome's writings seem to have contradictions.  Sounding sometimes like a Universalist and sometimes like he believes in a very Non-Calvinist Eternal Security.

"Just as we believe that the torments of the Devil, of all the deniers of God, of the ungodly who have said in their hearts, 'there is no God,' will be eternal, so too do we believe that the judgment of Christian sinners, whose works will be tried and purged in fire will be moderate and mixed with clemency.' Furthermore, 'He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he die in sin, shall by his faith live forever."

But he also said things contradicting that elsewhere.

It seems Hilary, Jerome, Abmrose and Abmrosiaster taught an early form of Purgutory.  Dividing people's fate at the Judgment into 3 Camps.  The Ungodly who with he Devil will burn forever.  The Sanctified who go directly to Heaven.  And the average Christians who need to be "Purged by fire".  They probably got this "purged by fire" notion from a misunderstanding of what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3:15 about the Bema Judgment.  That there will be believers who get no rewards because their good deeds were all burned up, but they are still saved.

Tertullian truly proves problematic in Against Marcion, where he goes overboard in opposing Marcion's use of Paul to assert Paul is not a valid Apostle at all, and in that work he seems to oppose even By Faith Alone.  He also does not even consider the Four Gospels equal.

Also a number of these early fathers cited for their opposition to Eternal Security were Universalists.