Alright, so I may have overstated things a bit in my title. There are of course subsequent debates on this issue, e.g., Erasmus v. Martin Luther,[1] Arminianism v. Calvinism, and of course the frequent debates in Christian college dorm rooms. And don’t forget what may be Jonathan Edwards’ most famous book, Freedom of the Will. But, all of these can trace back in some sense and in some form to the “original” debate between Pelagius and Augustine[2] in which the good side, the right side, won. (Yeah, I’m biased.) Augustine–the “winner” of the debate as opposed to Pelagius who was declared a heretic–settled the debate… kinda, sorta, …well, at least in my opinion. Augustine explained how human choice, human responsibility, called “free will” by many, is compatible or “fits” with God’s sovereignty (hence the typical “Free will versus God’s sovereignty” is not an appropriate way to describe the tension).
Church History
Augustine and Inerrancy
In somewhat recent times, attacks have been leveled by “liberal” scholars against the belief in scripture’s inerrancy, that the Bible is infallible and without error in its original writings. Many have claimed that early 1900’s Christian conservatives, evangelical-fundamentalists, such as the “Princetonians” B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge, “invented” the doctrine of inerrancy. One incredible text that refutes this re-writing of history comes from Augustine’s work Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, book XI, chapter 5. Read Augustine’s absolutely incredible testimony.
As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: “And if ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. Continue reading
The Creed of Chalcedon
The following creed, written in AD 451 at the the Council of Chalcedon, declares in clear, deliberate, and precise language the orthodox view of Christology (theology of Christ).
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.[1. The following rendition of the creed is taken from Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
“Christians Dwell in the World, Yet are Not of the World”: A 2nd Century Description of Christians
The following is an excerpt from “The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus,” an anonymous letter (mathetes [μαθητής in Greek] simply meaning “disciple”) believed to be dated around the 2nd century. Here, “Mathetes” gives us a positive description of Christians (as opposed to the more common descriptions of Christians at this time–confused and/or condescending) from his 2nd-century-perspective.
For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. Continue reading
Wesley on “What Manner of Men We Ought to Be”
Preface
In John Wesley’s “An Address to the Clergy” in Wesley’s Works (1872 Jackson ed., vol 10), originally addressed or more likely written in London on February 6, 1756, Wesley addressed a group of clergy/ministers (or as we might say, “pastors/elders”) as to what type of men he and they ought to be as shepherds of God’s Church. The following is Wesley’s selected list of attributes (in direct quotes) that I trust you will find both interesting and challenging.
“To begin with gifts”
“With those that are from nature”
- “First, a good understanding, a clear apprehension, a sound judgment, and a capacity of reasoning with some closeness.”
- “Secondly. Is it not highly expedient that a guide of souls should have likewise some liveliness and readiness of thought?”
- “Thirdly. A good memory. . . .”
Kirk E. Miller 