Anglicanism and Free Will
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 жов 2024
- What do the Anglican Formularies, following Scripture, Augustine, Luther and Calvin say about the place free will has in our salvation?
A fuller treatment of how the Anglican Formularies deny free will in salvation:
newkingdom.hom...
St Augustine's denial of free will:
newkingdom.hom...
John Calvin's denial of free will:
newkingdom.hom...
Martin Luther's denial of free will:
newkingdom.hom...
Scriptural proof for the sovereignty of God over our wills:
newkingdom.hom...
Scriptural proof for how faith is a gift of God alone:
newkingdom.hom...
Scriptural proof for monergism and our inability to do good and persevere:
newkingdom.hom...
Congratulations on the birth of your beloved baby boy, Basil. May he be blessed and committed to the Holy Trinity for all the days of his life.
Thank you!
Thank you for the excellent overview of this aspect of Augustinian theology! I'm an Anglican in the United States (ACNA) who's currently ironing out some of my theological views, and this video gave me a lot to chew on.
This is the best Anglican youtube channel i have found, thank you! Been thinking through what it would look like to join into a different Christian tradition, and the Anglican church is very appealing. Thank you for helping me think through these topics!
Just discovered this - it's very timely because I'm working through understanding human will and the will of God from a Reformed Perspective, which I think you hold to since you're Reformed Anglican I believe. Thanks for making this!
Thanks again for the video, will be looking into the articles.
Congratulations and God's blessing!
Thank you young man it's so good to hear theology that fits to one's own experience meaning me. Brilliant thank you.
The Confessional Lutheran view (as such, distinct from Luther) is interestingly situated more between the Calvinist framework and the Arminian-Wesleyan position.
Regeneration is monergistic (the will is converted by grace) and man merely receives salvation -- there is no cooperation in the libertarian sense. Yet, humans in our sinful state can "choose" to reject and resist Divine Grace and thus receive reprobation (contrary to God's desire).
At the same time, there is a finite number of The Elect (those who were chosen in Christ to be _finally_ saved) who can never be lost...
BUT, predestination is distinct from regeneration: Because the atonement is universal, the call of God is universal, and His efficacious grace is universal (Spirit working wherever the means of grace are offered) there are those who can gain genuine regeneration for a time (not simply external covenant membership) and then apostatize losing their salvation. Having lost their salvation they prove their lack of election/perseverance.
Hello from the U.S! I really appreciate your videos. Lots to learn. I've been studying reformed theology for a while now and it really does seem to be the true interpretation of the gospels. Your vids have inspired me to check out a reformed anglican church so thanks! 😀
Excellent video!!! And Congratulations on the birth of your son!!!
Greetings from a rather cold, wintery Canterbury.... U.K! 🇬🇧
Relatable taking time off when you have a new baby. Congratulations. Great video too. Very informative.
great video Fr. River, but i have some questions on apostasy, i tend to take the view that our salvation is by God alone and by nothing of what we do, but i tend to take the view that falling away is by ourselves, so this raises my questions
1. if apostasy is on God's part for the believer, then how do we know God isn't going to take His grace from us?
2. why does God give us a salvific faith then take it away?
maybe im misinterpreting your view, but i thought i would ask
Congratulations for the birth of you son 🙏
Congratulations, brother.
Ok thanks I do appreciate and you have helped me out I guess I'm not a center jest. I still don't see The reformed understanding of predestination and definitely do not see eternal security or perseverance of the saints as of yet.you have explained this like no one else to me.
Hi River, firstly congratulations to you and your new family, I hope you're well.
Admittedly I struggle with the question of my own salvation. On the one hand, my own turning to Christ was such an improbable thing, given that I've spent most of my life until the past two years as an ardent and hardened atheist. So I fully ascribe this to the will of God, as I could never have undergone such a drastic reversal of my own accord.
But I do worry at times, as I often feel that my own faith is somewhat insufficient, and lacks the necessary conviction. Indeed, most of my prayers are an appeal to God to kindle this small flame that he has placed in my heart. Now it goes without saying that nobody can be "half" saved, so is it simply a question of perseverance?
Praise God for your conversion!
The second Homily ("On the Misery of Mankind") indeed describes our own faith and works as pitiful. We can never pray without selfishness and some doubt. We can never believe without reservations. We can never do good without self-congratulation or expectation of reward. Etc. This may lead us to question our own faith at times and the answer is profoundly simple:
Look to Jesus.
If you look inwardly to yourself you'll find nothing good, nothing worth saving, and so naturally you will despair. Look instead to the Great Physician, the Lamb of God, whose endless mercy shall see you through. Rest only on His grace. Ironically, this act of looking to Jesus is itself all the faith you need to be saved and will also keep you from despair.
Another tip: allow yourself to trust in your salvation. It's not arrogant. It's not liberal. It won't lead to antinomianism. Unless of course you truly do not have faith but I trust that you do. Trust in Jesus. So long as you look to Him, believe in Him, love Him and in beholding His purity repent of your evil self, you are okay.
Here's Luther on this as well:
“I should not want ‘free-will’ to be given me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavour after salvation; not merely because in the face of so many dangers, and aversities, and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground and hold fast my ‘free-will’… but because, even were there no dangers, adversities, or devils, I should still be forced to labour with no guarantee of success… Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt as to whether it pleased God, or whether He required something more… But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him” (Luther, The Bondage of the Will, p.313-314).
In some quarters of the larger Church the word “faith “is actually meant as “faithfulness“. It’s not about me gritting my teeth and clenching my fists in hopes that I have enough faith but it’s the daily working out of putting 1 foot in front of the other, trusting God and being faithful just as He is faithful. That slightly different perspective on the word “faith” has helped me tremendously.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Thanks River, this explanation has provided some much-needed clarity.
Philippians 1:6
English Standard Version
6 And I am sure of this, that he who began (A)a good work in you (B)will bring it to completion at (C)the day of Jesus Christ.
Jeremiah 32:40
English Standard Version
40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.
I wonder if what concerns some about the Calvinist articulation of God's Sovereignty is that it can _sound_ borderline Voluntarist. I.e. that God is absolutely free, can act arbitrarily if He so desires, and is not bound to the constraints of His nature and goodness -- we as creatures have to accept any and all of His actions as definitionally 'good' simply by virtue of Him doing them regardless of whether they correspond to the revealed/natural law or not (famously: the Euthyphro dilemma, is a thing 'good' because the gods love it or do the gods love it because a thing is 'good'?)
I'm not saying that is Calvin's conception of God, but I can see how some critics might see his articulation (and justification: "who are we to question?") as being in stark contrast to the moral nature of God -- as laid out in Thomism, for example.
It's an interesting thing to think about. And don't think I'm taking a pot-shot at the Reformed exclusively, I think Luther has some uncomfortably Voluntarist-sounding language in his BotW.
God bless you brother! Baptist confirmed Episcopalian in 2008. Got on the Canterbury trail in 1984 after accepting the Doctrines of Grace @1981. You are a breath of fresh air! Glad I found your channel.....Oh yeah, Congratulations on the birth of your baby boy. Church of the Incarnation Dallas is my church home.
Ir is so good to hear a REAL Anglican talk about this subject, rhe more so because what you emphasise is what Luther and Lutherans also emphasise, without lost time and labour nattering on about reprobation, which ouf two churches do not accept.
I personally do not have mulch of a problem with the doctrine of reprobation. It's really just a matter of not becoming obsessed with negative predestination, which is questionable to say the least.
Congrats, my son Benjamin was born 3 months ago.
The thing I'm struggling with is that it doesn't seem like salvation is even offered to the non-elect. Because if the Father chose the elect to have faith and be saved, and if Christ's atonement was for the non-elect as well as the elect, then that puts Christ at odds with the Father. So Christ cannot have died for the non-elect. But if Christ did not atone for the non-elect, then how can we say that salvation is in any way offered to them? They certainly aren't desirous of being saved, but even if their wills were free, they wouldn't have a path for life set before them.
I agree that god has the sovereignty to do what he wants with us, to save or damn, and that without gods help and direction we could not successfully choose him.
However I think God in the scripture and in my life has spent too much time willing and trying to get us to choose him, for me to think he was doing it knowingly in futility.
The amount of times the Israelites turned from god and had to deal with the consequences happened too often for me to believe that this was done just to show that humans suck on their own.
Especially because I think the life experiences of every and any Christian is sufficient to show our incapacity to stay on gods path without him
I'm late in seeing this, but congrats on the birth of your son. He must be about 1 now?
Congrats on the baby man.
Your quote from Augustin "sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost" is referring to Adam losing his will to the slavery of sin, yes, but where do you get that he lost the ability to choose between God and sin? Christians who affirm free will do not deny that apart from God's grace our will is enslaved to sin and therefore NOT free. If God never stepped in and showered Adam with his grace, he would have been able to do nothing but sin, just as all Christians would.
The debate comes when grace is referred to as "irresistible." Yes, thank God that he gives us grace as sinners, but one specific grace he gives us is our free will: the ability to freely choose him or freely reject him. If God's grace were truly 100% irresistible, it would be coercive. God's grace respects the free will of his creation and allows man the dignity of freely choosing him while retaining the possibility of rejecting him.
You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you (Acts 7:51)
I don't think it's coercive when you think of it as God restoring us to sanity.
I don't think the ends justify the means. Even if God brings us to heaven, if it was through coercion it would not be right. The defense of free will is ultimately a defense of God's goodness and justness.
@@ManofSteel007 Also, remember that Augustine says "God changes the unwilling to make him willing." Augustine did not teach at the end of his life that man chooses whether or not to accept God's call.
God is deserving of worship as justice. In our insanity we cannot believe what it plainly obvious and will not give to God what is His just due. Through Him healing us we become sane. That's not coercion, that's therapeutic help.
The monergism/synergism distinction is something I think about often. I don't understand how one can accept monergism and not ultimately come to the conclusion that God is a capricious monster. You're right that God has every right to do with us whatever he will; we are his creation and cannot dictate to him our purpose for existence. However, a love that is not freely chosen is not truly love. If monergism is true, you can look at your best friend, your spouse, your parents, and if they are not predestined - no matter how "good" they may be from your perspective - you're infallibly going to heaven and they're infallibly going to hell, and the decision is entirely arbitrary, at least in any meaningful way to us. It is clear that you are a faithful person and you are seeking the truth. I don't see any ill will in you following Calvinist theology. However, with the greatest of repsect and sadness, I would have to admit that Calvinists, and others influenced by him, simply do not worship the same God as apostolic Christians. The monergist/synergist distinction logically leads to such a stark contrast in the character and nature of God, that the two ideas cannot be a reflection of the same Being.
Surely Jesus came to save the world, ALL the world and not just the elect? All who choose to believe are saved and not just those pre-chosen for salvation. As I read the Gospel, the elect are those who have chosen Christ through their faith and again, not pre-chosen by God from the beginning? We see in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (we don't see "For God so loved the elect that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever is predestined to believe in Him shall not perish but have eternal life). Fortunately, this is why we can witness to others and preach the Gospel of salvation in order that no one perishes.
I understand references to Jesus Christ saving the whole world to refer to the future period before His coming when the whole world will be turned to Him
What does "world" mean in each case?
World doesn't always mean everyone. For instance in Luke 2:1
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the _world_ should be taxed.
Was the whole world taxed, or just those under Roman rule?
Praise God for His Prevenient Grace!
If I'm being honest, I am saddened to see you go the Calvinist route. It's not catholic, and it is in deep conflict with the historic consensus of the Church. The formularies are clear about predestination to life (something the Church Catholic affirms)-but the formularies are completely silent on what would be termed "double predestination." An Arminian, Thomist, and Molinist can all hold to the Articles in good conscience. They do not demand a Calvinist reading. The whole issue isn't as black and white as Calvin and Luther's Bondage of the Will make it seem.
And while I am in agreement that we cannot change our wills towards the good without the grace of God, Scripture is clear that the grace of God is not irresistible. Romans 1:24-28 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11 provide good examples of this. In both cases, God's condemnation FOLLOWS mankind's rejection. "BECAUSE THEY.....GOD HANDED."
In the case of salvation, God MUST be the initiator. We cannot will our own salvation (yes & amen). God ALWAYS acts first (grace), we respond (follows). But in the case of damnation, God provides the offer of grace (initiation), and ONLY when rejected does the natural consequence of reprobation occur. Why else would God "[send] them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false?" (2 Thess 2:11). Are not their wills already bound to what is false, unable to see the truth? Why would God need to delude those who are already unable to see the truth? And why (verse 12) we he delude those who CANNOT see the truth, for NOT seeing and receiving the truth? The only way this text makes sense is if God provided grace that was rejected.
In the Calvinistic framework, God has predetermined damnation apart from human action and response. This is a false dilemma as it distorts divine simplicity. God's foreknowledge and determinism are not contradictory, nor do they follow a logical order; and yet this is what the Calvinist position proposes.
In the words of the late Augustinian teacher Norm Geisler: "God's election is neither based on His foreknowledge of man's free choices, nor exercised independent of it. As the Scriptures declare, we are 'elect according to the foreknowledge of God' (1 Peter 1:2 NKJV). That is to say, there is no chronological or logical priority of election and foreknowledge....God is a simple Being, all of whose attributes are one with His indivisible essence. Hence, both foreknowledge and predetermination are one in God. Whatever God knows, He determines. And whatever God determines, He knows....Both must be simultaneous, eternal, and coordinate acts of God" ( Chosen but Free, 53).
Lastly, you also stated that if God gives us the ability to choose him, salvation ultimately comes down to "myself." How? If God did not provide grace, no matter how much faith I exerted, I would still be lost. Why? Because faith does not save-which you seem to think does. However Scripture is clear that grace does the saving, with faith simply being the instrument of reception. Plus, if salvation was completely independent of us, why on earth would Paul say "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling?" Clearly though it is God who works within us, we are still called to participate in this working out of our salvation. I fail to see how Calvinism allows for "fear and trembling."
Blessings on your theological journey, my friend. I pray this comment will be taken with the heart of charity in which it was written.
Thanks for this reply, there's a lot to digest.
I think at this stage I am more interested in discussing what the Formularies say and then from there we can establish whether or not they are agreeable.
I would like to think that my article on the Formularies shows that the standard reading of them should be Calvinistic. I certainly do not agree with you that an Arminian can read them with no issues, and Wesley did erase many of the Articles after all.
In terms of the catholic consensus, I would say first that Councils like the Synod of Dort do count for something, and while most church Fathers do seem to uphold free will I am not convinced that that is the result of Apostolic teaching being passed to them, and therefore, based on my hermeneutic I do not believe they are authoritative on it. I am also unconvinced by your Biblical comments, but we can leave that to the side for now.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Fair enough. I host a podcast; and as a more Anglo-Catholic leaning Anglican, it would be fun to have a dialog on where we agree and where we differ-for the sake of unity. If you'd be up for something like that, let me know. The invitation stands.
@@merecatholicity Sounds good to me!
@@newkingdommedia9434 I'll reach out to you privately, and we can work something out.
@Dakota Bledsoe You're overstating the case about the early church on free will and the reason I side with Augustine over Fathers like Chrysostom on free will is solely because of what I believe Scripture plainly teaches.
20:00
Augustine didn’t deny free will, your pigeonholing him here and getting didn’t think scripture did either
Did God predestine that Adam and Eve would choose to eat from the forbidden fruit. If I were you I’d think long and hard about what the implications of Calvinist doctrine has when it comes to the existence of sin in the first place. If God didn’t play dice in this situation then he willed sin to enter the world. God does not will sin.
Hi, thanks for this, 2 things:
1. I don't like speculation. I do believe that Scripture tells us (see my articles in the description) that God is totally sovereign and man has no free will in salvation and so I believe it. I do not see anywhere where Scripture tells us what happened with the Fall and so I'm not comfortable saying definitively what happened.
2. Augustine does teach (I quoted it in the vid) that prior to the Fall Adam did have free will and then once he fell it was lost. Therefore, the view I espouse does not necessarily mean God caused the Fall to happen. But did God will for it at least in the sense that he allowed it? I think yes, otherwise He is not totally sovereign.
@@newkingdommedia9434 As for Adam, it is helpful to understand that his (and our) will (ability to choose salvation) was totally corrupted by his Fall., and that it was NOT corrupted before his Fall. Moreover, God's plan of salvation (in Jesus Christ) was established not just after Adam fell but rather before he fell; before time itself. Incidentally, I learned this from Augustine, who explains the difference between eternity which is uncreated and time which is created. So yes, God predestined His created son Adam's Fall in order that He might ultimately be glorified in His eternal Son.
@@HudsonBarton Excellent. That is how I see it too.