Wednesday, July 04, 2012

Augustine on the Bondage of the will, Freedom and Free Will


Chapter 30.—Men are Not Saved by Good Works, Nor by the Free Determination of Their Own Will, But by the Grace of God Through Faith.
“But this part of the human race to which God has promised pardon and a share in His eternal kingdom, can they be restored through the merit of their own works? God forbid! For what good work can a lost man perform, except so far as he has been delivered from perdition? Can they do anything by the free determination of their own will? Again I say, God forbid. For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost. “For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.”   (2 Peter 2:19)  This is the judgment of the Apostle Peter. And as it is certainly true, what kind of liberty, I ask, can the bond-slave possess, except when it pleases him to sin? For he is freely in bondage who does with pleasure the will of his master. Accordingly, he who is the servant of sin is free to sin. And hence he will not be free to do right, until, being freed from sin, he shall begin to be the servant of righteousness. And this is true liberty, for he has pleasure in the righteous deed; and it is at the same time a holy bondage, for he is obedient to the will of God. But whence comes this liberty to do right to the man who is in bondage and sold under sin, except he be redeemed by Him who has said, “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed?”  (John 8:36)  And before this redemption is wrought in a man, when he is not yet free to do what is right, how can he talk of the freedom of his will and his good works, except he be inflated by that foolish pride of boasting which the apostle restrains when he says, “By grace are ye saved, through faith.” (Ephesians 2:8)

Chapter 31.—Faith Itself is the Gift of God; And Good Works Will Not Be Wanting in Those Who Believe.
And lest men should arrogate to themselves the merit of their own faith at least, not understanding that this too is the gift of God, this same apostle, who says in another place that he had “obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful”, (1 Corinthians 7:25) here also adds: “and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)  And lest it should be thought that good works will be wanting in those who believe, he adds further: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:10)  We shall be made truly free, then, when God fashions us, that is, forms and creates us anew, not as men—for He has done that already—but as good men, which His grace is now doing, that we may be a new creation in Christ Jesus, according as it is said: “Create in me a clean heart, O God.”  (Psalm 51:10) For God had already created his heart, so far as the physical structure of the human heart is concerned; but the psalmist prays for the renewal of the life which was still lingering in his heart.”

Augustine, Enchiridion 30-31 (My own emphasis) 

John 8:34 - Jesus said, "Truly I say to you whoever commits sin is the slave of sin."

Romans 6:22 - "But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life." 

"If you abide in My word, then you are truly My disciples, and you will know the truth, and the Truth will set you free" Jesus John 8:31-32

On this Fourth of July, 2012 - we celebrate and are thankful to God for our political freedom, but even more, we believers in Jesus Christ are grateful to God and celebrate our true spiritual freedom from sin and the slavery to sin.  (Romans 6:6-7) 

19 comments:

James Swan said...

If you don't have it, this book by Jonathan Rainbow The will of God and the cross: an historical and theological study of John Calvin's doctrine of limited redemption has an excellent chapter on Augustine and limited atonement.

Pete Holter said...

Hey Ken!

I put together some material on this same topic here (not the same posts as linked to in the comment under de Sales):

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=469776#11
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=469776&page=5#67
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=469776&page=18#258

Have a blessed night, my Reformed brothers!

In Christ,
Pete

RPV said...

Pete,
How can two walk together if they are not agreed on the vicious idolatry of the mass, the blasphemous supremacy and infallibility of the pope and a gospel of faith and works?
Answer? They can't.
Conclusion: Therefore they are not brothers.

Granted, it would be nice if we could all get along, but the conflict between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent will not be resolved until the Lord returns.

Thank you.

David Waltz said...

Hello RPV,

Not Pete, but I would like to enter into this public discussion. In your post, you wrote:

==How can two walk together if they are not agreed on the vicious idolatry of the mass, the blasphemous supremacy and infallibility of the pope and a gospel of faith and works?
Answer? They can't.
Conclusion: Therefore they are not brothers.==

Me: First, could you provide a concise definition of what you think "idolatry" is?

Second, with your understanding of "idolatry" in mind, what precisely is 'idolatrous' in the RCC mass?

Third, papal supremacy and infallibility is primarily an ecclesiastical issue—do you believe that a correct understanding of ecclesiology is necessary for salvation?

Fourth, are you aware that some conservative Reformed scholars do not believe that Trent teaches "a gospel of faith and works?"


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

I agree that the Roman Catholic Mass in Transubstantiation and genuflecting before the consecrated host is idolatrous, as is praying to statues of Mary and kissing the feet of statues of Jesus - yes - idolatrous.

Ken said...

Fourth, are you aware that some conservative Reformed scholars do not believe that Trent teaches "a gospel of faith and works?"

Who?

RPV said...

David,

In that the Roman church avoids the thrust of the Second Commandment by subsuming it under the First, one can perhaps understand the reason for your question. IOW worshipping images, if even a piece of bread that is supposed to be God is idolatry.

Yet the Heidelberg ought to be clear enough.

Lord’s Day 30
80. What difference is there between the Lord’s
Supper and the Pope’s Mass?
The Lord’s Supper testifies to us that we have full
forgiveness of all our sins by the one sacrifice of Jesus
Christ, which He Himself once accomplished on the
cross;[1] and that by the Holy Spirit we are ingrafted
into Christ,[2] who, with His true body, is now in
heaven at the right hand of the Father,[3] and is there
to be worshipped.[4] But the Mass teaches that the
living and the dead do not have forgiveness of sins
through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is still
daily offered for them by the priests, and that Christ
is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and is
therefore to be worshipped in them. And thus the
Mass at bottom is nothing else than a denial of the
one sacrifice and suffering of Jesus Christ,[5] and an
accursed idolatry.
[1] Mt 26:28; Jn 19:30; Heb 7:27, 9:12, 25-28, 10:10-12,
14; [2] 1 Cor 6:17, 10:16-17; [3] Jn 20:17; Acts 7:55-56;
Heb 1:3, 8:1; [4] Lk 24:52; Jn 4:21-24, 20:17; Acts 7:55;
Php 3:20-21; Col 3:1; 1 Thes 1:9-10; [5] Mt 4:10; Heb 9,

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

You posted:

==Fourth, are you aware that some conservative Reformed scholars do not believe that Trent teaches "a gospel of faith and works?"

Who?==

Me: Dr. Charles Hodge and A.N.S. Lane are two that come to mind.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi RPV,

Thanks much for taking the time to respond to my questions. In your response you wrote:

==In that the Roman church avoids the thrust of the Second Commandment by subsuming it under the First, one can perhaps understand the reason for your question. IOW worshipping images, if even a piece of bread that is supposed to be God is idolatry.==

Interesting take; however, it seems to me that since our Lord was worshipped (proskuneō) during His 3 year ministry, if the Eucharist is literally 'the body and blood of Christ', then I fail to see how bowing down after the change takes place in the Mass would constitute idolatry.

BTW, think you should know I have not believed in the doctrine of the 'real presence' (as held by Catholics, the EO, and some Anglicans) for over two years now.


Grace and peace,

David

Joe said...

Hi David.

You said: BTW, think you should know I have not believed in the doctrine of the 'real presence' (as held by Catholics, the EO, and some Anglicans) for over two years now.

Me: Just curious if you believe in any 'real presence'?

Thanks.

-Joe

David Waltz said...

Hi Joe,

Have not solidified my position on the Eucharist, and remain 'open' to pretty much all the major views. But with that said, like Luther, I have difficulty with watering down our Lord's own words: "This is my body."

So though I believe the Lord's Supper is a memorial, I also believe that He is truly present; I just cannot explain exactly how at this point in my studies.

Sincerely hope I have answered your question in a reasonable fashion.


Grace and peace,

David

Joe said...

Hi David.

Okay..thanks. That does clarify to some degree. You say your open to any major view, but do not currently believe the RC, Orthodox or Anglican view. So that sounds like you not really open to these views...but I think I get at what your saying.

I am in a similar position I guess. Am Lutheran, but do not understand (and perhaps were not meant to) that Christ is "in, under and with" the bread/wine. Definitely see it as more than a memorial...but how He is present without violating Chalcedon, I wrestle with.

Only follow up question I would have is if there was a reason you left the Lutheran view out of your list of views you do not believe? Or do you see the Lutheran view as mainly the same as Anglican, Ortho and RC?

Thanks.

-Joe

David Waltz said...

Hello again Joe,

Thanks much for taking the time to engage in further dialogue. In your last response you wrote:

==Okay..thanks. That does clarify to some degree. You say your open to any major view, but do not currently believe the RC, Orthodox or Anglican view. So that sounds like you not really open to these views...but I think I get at what your saying.==

Me: I do not currently believe what the RCC, EO churches, and some Anglicans teach—i.e. that the bread and wine literally, in the fullest sense, become the body and blood of our Lord—but remain open to the possibility that I have incorrectly understood the teaching.

==I am in a similar position I guess. Am Lutheran, but do not understand (and perhaps were not meant to) that Christ is "in, under and with" the bread/wine. Definitely see it as more than a memorial...but how He is present without violating Chalcedon, I wrestle with.==

Me: The whole 'substance' and 'accidents' issue began to trouble me; I have no problem with notion that the literal body and blood of our Lord could still seem to our senses (sight, smell, touch, taste) to be ordinary bread and wine, but if the 'substance' had truly changed into the physical body and blood of our Lord, a DNA test should demonstrate that.

Cardinal Ratzinger, before becoming Pope Benedict XVI, had some interesting thoughts on this issue, but they seemed to be at odds with the RCC 'traditional' understanding.

==Only follow up question I would have is if there was a reason you left the Lutheran view out of your list of views you do not believe? Or do you see the Lutheran view as mainly the same as Anglican, Ortho and RC?==

Me: The matter is a bit complex, but one of the primary reasons why I "left the Lutheran view out of [my] list" was to avoid confrontation/s with some of the frequent posters here at BA. But, risking possible confrontation, I personally understand "the Lutheran view as mainly the same as Anglican, Ortho and RC".


Grace and peace,

David

Joe said...

Hi David.

You said: I do not currently believe what the RCC, EO churches, and some Anglicans teach—i.e. that the bread and wine literally, in the fullest sense, become the body and blood of our Lord—but remain open to the possibility that I have incorrectly understood the teaching.

Me: Okay...makes sense. Do you have an opinion as to if there was a consensus, in the main, on this matter in the early church?

You said: The whole 'substance' and 'accidents' issue began to trouble me; I have no problem with notion that the literal body and blood of our Lord could still seem to our senses (sight, smell, touch, taste) to be ordinary bread and wine, but if the 'substance' had truly changed into the physical body and blood of our Lord, a DNA test should demonstrate that.

Me: Right, from what I understand of the RC (others) a DNA test should confirm or prove false their claims...whereas the Lutheran view does not have this problem.

You said; Cardinal Ratzinger, before becoming Pope Benedict XVI, had some interesting thoughts on this issue, but they seemed to be at odds with the RCC 'traditional' understanding.

Me: interesting. Do you have a source I could read concerning this?

You said: The matter is a bit complex, but one of the primary reasons why I "left the Lutheran view out of [my] list" was to avoid confrontation/s with some of the frequent posters here at BA. But, risking possible confrontation, I personally understand "the Lutheran view as mainly the same as Anglican, Ortho and RC".

Me: Okay...thanks. I do think the Lutheran view avoids someof the issues you mention though.

Thanks.

-joe

David Waltz said...

Good morning Joe,

In your last response you asked:

== Do you have an opinion as to if there was a consensus, in the main, on this matter in the early church?==

Me: I think when polemics are jettisoned, one will discern that there is a general consensus among the CFs (who write on this issue), which speaks to both a spiritual and physical 'real presence' in the Eucharist.

You then wrote:

== Right, from what I understand of the RC (others) a DNA test should confirm or prove false their claims...whereas the Lutheran view does not have this problem.==

Me: Could you explain this a bit further; for I thought the Lutheran teaching is that our Lord's body and blood are literally present in the Eucharist.

As for Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, in the book, God Is Near Us - Google preview, Ratzinger offers some interesting reflections on the Eucharist.

In the 5th chapter, "The Presence of the Lord n the Sacrament", he delves into "three questions above all that are opposed to the belief in the real presence of the Lord" (p. 76 ff. - see preview linked to above). He places an emphasis on "the whole person", stating that: "Body, in the language of the Bible, denotes rather the whole person, in whom body and spirit are indivisible one." (Page 79.) And then a bit later he gets into what takes place via "transubstantiation" (p. 84 ff.), which to me is quite complex and deep. After reading through his reflections, I am still just a bit confused as to exactly what he is attempting to convey, but it seems to me that he is saying that in the Eucharist the transubstantiated elements become the means by which our Lord is present in His entire "person" (i.e. divinity and humanity/spiritual and physical).

[FYI: the book can be purchased at Amazon.com for as low as $1.81 + shipping. ]

Looking forward to your comments...


Grace and peace,

David

Joe said...

Hi James.

As I am trying to learn more of the Lutheran Confessions...I am reading the Augsburg Confession (and its apology) right now and came across this quote from Augustine that it references under Article XVII - Free Will (Augustine quote bolded, italics Augsburg):

Of Free Will they (our churches) teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good or evil. "Good" I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn diverse useful arts, or whatsoever good 6]pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being. "Evil" I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc. They (our churches) condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.

In Him,

-Joe

Joe said...

Hi David.

Thanks for your response.

You said: Could you explain this a bit further; for I thought the Lutheran teaching is that our Lord's body and blood are literally present in the Eucharist.

Me: Well, yes, Lutherans believe the body/blood are literally present...but no substance and accidens distinction. The bread and wine are still bread and wine, but Christ is "in, with and under" the bread and wine. So, if I understand this correctly anyhow...DNA would still show bread/wine.

Sorry that is a very short explanation. We were packing all day for vacation...and will be gone for a week. Perhaps we can pick it up further when I get back as I doubt there will be any internet connection (at least there was not last year).

I do appreciate your link to Ratzinger and will check it out.

In Him,

Joe

David Waltz said...

Hi Joe,

Yesterday, you posted:

==Sorry that is a very short explanation. We were packing all day for vacation...and will be gone for a week. Perhaps we can pick it up further when I get back as I doubt there will be any internet connection (at least there was not last year).==

Have a fun, and safe, vacation!

When you get back, send me and email if you would like to continue our dialogue:

AugustineH354@aol.com


God bless,

David
9 minedre

Ken said...

David W. wrote:
Fourth, are you aware that some conservative Reformed scholars do not believe that Trent teaches "a gospel of faith and works?"

Ken asked:
Who?==

David W. answered:
Me: Dr. Charles Hodge and A.N.S. Lane are two that come to mind.

Did you write an article at your blog on that with references, etc.; and did they include Marin Chemitz's analysis of the Council of Trent?