Tag Archives: predestination

Justin Martyr the Calvinist? (part 2)

Posted on by
5

Michael Horton on Justin Martyr

Michael Horton, in his book Putting Amazing Back into Grace, writes the following in the appendix (link):

Not only does Scripture speak definitively in proclaiming God’s electing grace; the historic, catholic, apostolic church affirms these truths as the truly orthodox position of the church of Jesus Christ. To substantiate this claim, I have also prepared an abbreviated historical sketch from church fathers to the present, including church creeds, that clearly affirms the doctrines of grace.

Horton, unlike other Reformers, does not see in the early church the confusion and lack of certainty on this subject, but rather a “definitive affirmation” of the doctrines of grace (aka TULIP and meticulous sovereignty).

Unfortunately, the quotes Horton uses from the early church to substantiate his claim do not contain citations making them difficult to find and read within their full context. Far worse is the fact that many of the quotes have been shown to be spurious. One should check out Jack Cottrell’s assessment of this appendix, which he calls “extremely poor scholarship”, for more details (link).

Since we are focusing on Justin Martyr, let’s examine one of Horton’s quotes attributed to him. The intent of the author is to show readers that Justin affirmed total depravity and irresistible grace.

Screen Shot 2018-08-25 at 3.57.41 PM.pngYet, if one were to search Justin’s works for the text “Free will has destroyed us” it can’t be found. Nor for that matter can the rest of this quote. However, as noted in Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free, we find that it was actually written by Tatian (and can be read in its context here). Continue reading →

Justin Martyr the Calvinist?

Posted on by
Reply

Regular readers of this blog will know I am an advocate of the Vincentian Canon. This principle, advocated by Vincent of Lérins, during the early to mid fifth century, in the Commonitorium, was given to help readers determine the “truth of [the universal] faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity.”

That principle is:

all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. (chapter 2)

Saint_Justin_Martyr_by_Theophanes_the_Cretan

Justin the Philosopher by Theophanes the Cretan [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

The word “faith” has a range of meanings. Here it is taken to mean the doctrine and practices of the church, rather than the loyal trust in God made by an individual. Vincent goes on, in chapter 31, to write:

what has been handed down from antiquity should be retained, what has been newly devised, rejected with disdain

Based on this principle, a solid reason for rejecting the Reformed teachings on the doctrines of grace; as captured in the acrostic TULIP, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Canons of Dort; is their novelty. These doctrines, based on extant writings, are not held by theologians prior to Augustine.

Continue reading →

Grace for All: Paul, the Potter, and Perspective? (Romans 9)

Posted on by
Reply

This post is a part of a series that is examining each essay in the recently published book Grace for All. 

Dr. James D. Strauss, who passed in 2014, was Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Lincoln Christian Seminary (link). His essay, edited by John D. Wagner tackles the challenging argument that Paul presents in Romans 9.

This chapter starts off a section that is widely accepted as starting in chapter 9 and continuing through to the end of chapter 11.

By Ks.mini (Own work) via Wikimedia Commons

By Ks.mini via Wikimedia Commons

The section starts off with Paul’s concern for the Jewish people:

For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites … (Rom 9:3-4 NASB)

A concern that is marked throughout the section, as it is expressed again in chapter 10:

Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. (Rom 10:1)

and again in chapter 11:

… Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them … (Rom 11:13-14)

It is within this context that Paul writes about God’s sovereign right to have mercy on whom He will, and harden whom He will (Rom 9:18) and to form His creation as He desires.

Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use? (Rom 9:21)

In Arminius’s examination of Roman’s 9 he notes that it is important to settle the main thesis or question that Paul is addressing. He proposes the challenge that Paul will seek to refute is as follows:

Does not the word God become of none effect, if those of the Jews, who seek righteousness, not of faith, but of the law, are rejected by God.

Is that the right thesis that Paul is refuting?

On what idea does Paul base his argument? Continue reading →