Man, love to hear more of this kind of conversation, especially from the Reformed side, all I hear in Pop-theology and pop-apologetics is "Arminianism good, Calvinism bad" or "Predestined to be punched on the face or Free will" and other sorts of caricatures. It's a breathe of fresh air.
I think the most popular thing nowadays is actually more like “Arminianism, man powerful, Calvinism, God powerful.” That’s at least what I encounter the most.
I feel like most anti-Calvinist who assert free will don't even understand what free will as a concept is and how it was perceived during the Reformation or in general Greco-Roman thought.
7 месяцев назад
11:37 I've tried to find this book and it's nearly impossible to do so!
Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Theological Controversy between Grace and Freedom by Jordan Ballor, Matthew Gaetano, and David Sytsma (editors)
Good presentation, but I have some objections to the historiographical framework Matt presents (not to his theological vision, understand that). The refomed weren´t tomistic. The Reformed did express interest in Scholastic commentaries on Aristotle, but their interest was not necessarily in Aquinas. Like,when Voetius wants to quote an sholastic about metaphysics, he mentions, not Aquinas, but Bonaventure’s Commentary on de Anima. Most reformed ideas about universals, nature of theology, necessity of the sacraments, don’t line up well with those of Thomas but to a more Scotist and Suarist line. In the de Universalibus by Martin Schoock, a dutch philosophy professor that was a close partner of Voetius and very influential among all the reformed on Neetherlands , presents a view of the problem of universals is thoroughly Scotist The distinction of necessity from consequence and consequent, the idea of election as localised with the divine will, theology as a science with a practical and not speculative purpose, the moral and not physical necessity of the sacraments, the conception of justification as God's acceptance of the sinner, all this reflects a Franciscan rather than a Thomist idea of theology and metaphysics. I recommend the book "Duns Scotus" and the article "On the polity of God: the ecclesiology of Duns Scotus" both by Richard Cross, showing the clear Franciscan influences on the reformation. Other very good books in this direction are Van Asselt's "Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism" and Andreas Beck's "Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676) on God, Freedom, and Contingency: An Early Modern Reformed Voice". I think they all show the influence of franciscan scholasticism on the reformation and the deep roots of reformed thought, despite some thomist ressonance, is mostly scotist. I think two good articles to start with would be delatinized.wordpress.com/2023/04/17/are-the-reformed-philosophically-thomist/ tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/rutherfords-scotist-ethics/
As an Arminian I still stand by the objection and don't see how the problem is avoided, but I do like the video encouraging returning to older sources & more dialogue!
I think that Scotus already explained how we can explain the autorship of sin and it´s relation with God in his Lectura II. dist. 34-37.In there, Scotus distinguishes between three types of co-causality. The first is co-causality according to accidental ordering, like two peoples carrying a rock, neither is sufficient by itself to do the deal, but an intensification of the power already present in one person would enable it to pull the whole load by itself. The second type of co-causality is essentially participative. For instance, the hand moves the stick to move the ball, the stick cannot move unless it is moved by the hand. A first cause moves a second cause without the second cause being able to move itself. The third type of co-causality is some kind of “autonomous” causation, like a husband and a wife having children. This type is different from the first because a person will be not able, by some kind of intensification, to bring forth children by himself or herself alone. Both are needed. This type is different from the second type because an autonomous co-cause is not a participative co-cause. A man does not cause the causality of his wife in having children. Like, when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God was the co-cause of their act,conserving their will and let it have its own volition. In his Lectura, Scotus argues: *"God does not foreknow that this will happen unless he knows the determination of his will, as has been said in I (dist. 39, n. 64). But if the created will were the complete cause of its volition and of contingent human acts, to whichever extent God knew the determination of His will, he would not know that that would happen. Proof of this: since this will not happen unless by a created will which is the complete cause, the created will is neither determined by the divine knowledge nor by his will. Therefore, if God knew a volition of the will, he could be mistaken, for the will can have an opposite, since God does not move the will"* Like, God cannot sin, neither Adam and Eve could make a decree that preserved their own volition and made them manifest on space and time. Jonathan Edards comes to the same conclusion himself *"Therefore the sovereignty of God doubtless extends to this matter; especially considering, that if it should be supposed to be otherwise, and God should leave men’s volitions, and all moral events, to the determination and disposition of blind and unmeaning causes, or they should be left to happen perfectly without a cause; this would be no more consistent with liberty, in any notion of it, and particularly not in the Arminian notion of it, than if these events were subject to the disposal of divine providence, and the will of man were determined by circumstances which are ordered and disposed by divine wisdom; as appears by what has been already observed. But ’tis evident, that such a providential disposing and determining men’s moral actions, though it infers a moral necessity of those actions, yet it does not in the least infringe the real liberty of mankind; the only liberty that common sense teaches to be necessary to moral agency, which, as has been demonstrated, is not inconsistent with such necessity."* WJE vol 1 732-733 ccel.org/ccel/e/edwards/works1/cache/works1.pdf I think this distinction solves a lot of objections from the arminian side about God and the evil without saying that God is author of the sin in the sense of infusing an evil tendency direclty on the creatures Another critique I have is when he tries to put Jonathan Edwards as opposite to the reformed scholasticism. In fact Edwards’s reasoning has a very close affinity with great Christian traditions; with Augustine, Scotus and with Reformed scholastics
"In other words, God has decreed that you act freely" - i agree with this statement and most of the stances described. But i don't think that the modern reformed/Calvinist discussion ( or even this reformed revival set of terms used in this video) uses the best description of the interplay between mans will and Gods. It's not sufficient to bring back old language and still call things reformed. The modern reformed movement actually teaches many of the errors attempting to be corrected here. This is because the language used historically is not the best way to describe things.
I was really disappointed to hear the lame Pelagian dismissal of provisionisiom. It seems that provisionisiom agrees with almost every "correction" of reformed theology you are talking about. Reformed/Calvinist are just so entrenched in their semantics that they fail to listen to understand.
God bless you Mr. Facey! I have found so many good Calvinist books and arguments by your ministry! You are truly of the spirit!
Man, love to hear more of this kind of conversation, especially from the Reformed side, all I hear in Pop-theology and pop-apologetics is "Arminianism good, Calvinism bad" or "Predestined to be punched on the face or Free will" and other sorts of caricatures. It's a breathe of fresh air.
I think the most popular thing nowadays is actually more like “Arminianism, man powerful, Calvinism, God powerful.” That’s at least what I encounter the most.
This was a fantastic conversation. I loved pouring into the traditional Reformed thought.
This is phenomenal
Outstanding! I am subscribed to Matt Hedges channel now.
I feel like most anti-Calvinist who assert free will don't even understand what free will as a concept is and how it was perceived during the Reformation or in general Greco-Roman thought.
11:37 I've tried to find this book and it's nearly impossible to do so!
Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis: The Dynamics of Theological Controversy between Grace and Freedom by Jordan Ballor, Matthew Gaetano, and David Sytsma (editors)
Good presentation, but I have some objections to the historiographical framework Matt presents (not to his theological vision, understand that).
The refomed weren´t tomistic. The Reformed did express interest in Scholastic commentaries on Aristotle, but their interest was not necessarily in Aquinas. Like,when Voetius wants to quote an sholastic about metaphysics, he mentions, not Aquinas, but Bonaventure’s Commentary on de Anima.
Most reformed ideas about universals, nature of theology, necessity of the sacraments, don’t line up well with those of Thomas but to a more Scotist and Suarist line. In the de Universalibus by Martin Schoock, a dutch philosophy professor that was a close partner of Voetius and very influential among all the reformed on Neetherlands , presents a view of the problem of universals is thoroughly Scotist
The distinction of necessity from consequence and consequent, the idea of election as localised with the divine will, theology as a science with a practical and not speculative purpose, the moral and not physical necessity of the sacraments, the conception of justification as God's acceptance of the sinner, all this reflects a Franciscan rather than a Thomist idea of theology and metaphysics.
I recommend the book "Duns Scotus" and the article "On the polity of God: the ecclesiology of Duns Scotus" both by Richard Cross, showing the clear Franciscan influences on the reformation. Other very good books in this direction are Van Asselt's "Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism" and Andreas Beck's "Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676) on God, Freedom, and Contingency: An Early Modern Reformed Voice". I think they all show the influence of franciscan scholasticism on the reformation and the deep roots of reformed thought, despite some thomist ressonance, is mostly scotist.
I think two good articles to start with would be
delatinized.wordpress.com/2023/04/17/are-the-reformed-philosophically-thomist/
tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/rutherfords-scotist-ethics/
Do you speak dutch or Latin? Or how do you handle the translation into English?
As an Arminian I still stand by the objection and don't see how the problem is avoided, but I do like the video encouraging returning to older sources & more dialogue!
Edwards freedom of the will
@@DieAbsoluteWahrheit I'm familiar with Edwards.
@@PracticalChristianLessons Then you should know that there is no philosophical Argument left to be an Arminian Brother.
@@DieAbsoluteWahrheit I'll let you know when that's true.
@@DieAbsoluteWahrheit Especially as philosophical arguments are not my primary concern, scriptural arguments are.
Im curious what reformed denomination matt hedges is apart of?
Probably Dutch Reformed lol
The will is only free when it is in Christ.
I think that Scotus already explained how we can explain the autorship of sin and it´s relation with God in his Lectura II. dist. 34-37.In there, Scotus distinguishes between three types of co-causality. The first is co-causality according to accidental ordering, like two peoples carrying a rock, neither is sufficient by itself to do the deal, but an intensification of the power already present in one person would enable it to pull the whole load by itself.
The second type of co-causality is essentially participative. For instance, the hand moves the stick to move the ball, the stick cannot move unless it is moved by the hand. A first cause moves a second cause without the second cause being able to move itself.
The third type of co-causality is some kind of “autonomous” causation, like a husband and a wife having children. This type is different from the first because a person will be not able, by some kind of intensification, to bring forth children by himself or herself alone. Both are needed. This type is different from the second type because an autonomous co-cause is not a participative co-cause. A man does not cause the causality of his wife in having children.
Like, when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God was the co-cause of their act,conserving their will and let it have its own volition.
In his Lectura, Scotus argues:
*"God does not foreknow that this will happen unless he knows the determination of his will, as has been said in I (dist. 39, n. 64). But if the created will were the complete cause of its volition and of contingent human acts, to whichever extent God knew the determination of His will, he would not know that that would happen. Proof of this: since this will not happen unless by a created will which is the complete cause, the created will is neither determined by the divine knowledge nor by his will. Therefore, if God knew a volition of the will, he could be mistaken, for the will can have an opposite, since God does not move the will"*
Like, God cannot sin, neither Adam and Eve could make a decree that preserved their own volition and made them manifest on space and time. Jonathan Edards comes to the same conclusion himself
*"Therefore the sovereignty of God doubtless extends to this matter; especially considering, that if it should be supposed to be otherwise, and God should leave men’s volitions, and all moral events, to the determination and disposition of blind and unmeaning causes, or they should be left to happen perfectly without a cause; this would be no more consistent with liberty, in any notion of it, and particularly not in the Arminian notion of it, than if these events were subject to the disposal of divine providence, and the will of man were determined by circumstances which are ordered and disposed by divine wisdom; as appears by what has been already observed. But ’tis evident, that such a providential disposing and determining men’s moral actions, though it infers a moral necessity of those actions, yet it does not in the least infringe the real liberty of mankind; the only liberty that common sense teaches to be necessary to moral agency, which, as has been demonstrated, is not inconsistent with such necessity."* WJE vol 1 732-733
ccel.org/ccel/e/edwards/works1/cache/works1.pdf
I think this distinction solves a lot of objections from the arminian side about God and the evil without saying that God is author of the sin in the sense of infusing an evil tendency direclty on the creatures
Another critique I have is when he tries to put Jonathan Edwards as opposite to the reformed scholasticism. In fact Edwards’s reasoning has a very close affinity with great Christian traditions; with Augustine, Scotus and with Reformed scholastics
"A sword against Arminians." Does he view us as an enemy that "needs to be defeated" or was that simply an off hand remark?
Yeah it seems that he either has a *very* low view of any non-Calvinist theology or he was just being cheeky.
He was using the term describing history. It very much was seen as a battle, so sword metaphorically as the tool used is totally legitimate.
"In other words, God has decreed that you act freely" - i agree with this statement and most of the stances described. But i don't think that the modern reformed/Calvinist discussion ( or even this reformed revival set of terms used in this video) uses the best description of the interplay between mans will and Gods.
It's not sufficient to bring back old language and still call things reformed. The modern reformed movement actually teaches many of the errors attempting to be corrected here. This is because the language used historically is not the best way to describe things.
I was really disappointed to hear the lame Pelagian dismissal of provisionisiom. It seems that provisionisiom agrees with almost every "correction" of reformed theology you are talking about. Reformed/Calvinist are just so entrenched in their semantics that they fail to listen to understand.
Or your tradition is about an inch deep and is basically irrelevant and not of any value.
@@EthanMiller-ul9sp so, do you have anything to substantiate your (this) tradition? Or just bad logic, insults, and "just trust us, we're old"?