In our fifth cliche of the series (for previous posts, see here, here, here, and here), I'd like to tackle a very common and very controversial idea. This post certainly ties back into some of the other issues already explored. Further, this idea is also deeply rooted in much Christian thinking. As with our other cliches, there is some biblical rooting for the idea, but the lack of nuancing with which it is portrayed is troublesome (at least to me. In this post I will address the question of whether God
2 Comments
The interpreters from Christianity's rich past can act as an (not "the") important interpretive checkpoint for our reading of the New Testament. In my mind, this is especially true of the early church fathers, those closest to the apostolic proclamation. On the issue of election and predestination, the early church fathers (prior to Augustine) generally hold together divine sovereignty and human freedom. This is illustrated well by Chrysostom's homilies on Ephesians.
In Homily I on Ephesians 1:1-2, Chrysostom says, “What is meant by, “He chose us in Him?” By means of the faith which is in Him, Christ, he means, happily ordered this for us before we were born; nay more, before the foundation of the world.” It is the salvific arrangement itself, not the individuals who will be saved, which Chrysostom suggests is in mind here. He continues: “ “In love,” says he, “having predestinated us.” Because this comes not of any pains, nor of any good works of ours, but of love; and yet not of love alone, but of our virtue also. For if indeed of love alone, it would follow that all must be saved; whereas again were it the result of our virtue alone, then were His coming needless, and the whole dispensation.” And again, in Homily IV on Ephesians 2:1-10, he says “In order then that the greatness of the benefits bestowed may not raise thee too high, observe how he brings thee down: “by grace ye have been saved,” says he, “Through faith;” Then, that, on the other hand, our free-will be not impaired, he adds also our part in the work, and yet again cancels it, and adds, “And that not of ourselves.” Neither is faith, he means, “of ourselves.” Because had He not come, had He not called us, how had we been able to believe? for “how,” says he, “shall they believe, unless they hear?” (Rom. x. 14.) So that the work of faith itself is not our own. “It is the gift,” said he, “of God,” it is “not of works.” Was faith then, you will say, enough to save us? No; but God, says he, hath required this, lest He should save us, barren and without work at all. His expression is, that faith saves, but it is because God so wills, that faith saves. Since, how, tell me, doth faith save, without works? This itself is the gift of God.” It is not individual faith here which Chrysostom views as the gift of God, but the entire salvific arrangement, which is in keeping with Paul’s syntax here. God’s gift is that he acted benevolently to rescue humanity from their plight. This was his plan before the foundation of the world because the plan was executed “in Christ.” Humans, for Chrysostom, must act upon this offer from God with a response of faith and virtue. It was God who intervened and initiated the rescue plan. This was not earned or deserved, but given in benevolence. But a response is required. Chrysostom holds the initiative of God and the freedom of humanity together, maintaining well the balance found throughout Scripture. |
Archives
October 2016
Categories
All
|