Why do you think the Devil was cast into the LOF in 70 A.D.?
If he’s active & not in the LOF now, when did he get out of the LOF?
I don’t but i think the FP belief is that the LOF is symbolic of 70AD. Personally i think he is as active as ever and the god of world’s fastest growing religion.
Given that Origen has moved my quote above from this thread to here I’ve decided to move my response to a more appropriate thread over HERE so this thread keeps closer to its theme.
Good idea.
In the early church, according to Church Father Origen - very many - Christians did not believe in free will:
“7. But, seeing there are found in the sacred Scriptures themselves certain expressions occurring in such a connection, that the opposite of this may appear capable of being understood from them, let us bring them forth before us, and, discussing them according to the rule of piety, let us furnish an explanation of them, in order that from those few passages which we now expound, the solution of those others which resemble them, and by which any power over the will seems to be excluded, may become clear.”
“Those expressions, accordingly, make an impression on very many, which are used by God in speaking of Pharaoh, as when He frequently says, I will harden Pharaoh’s heart. For if he is hardened by God, and commits sin in consequence of being so hardened, the cause of his sin is not himself. And if so, it will appear that Pharaoh does not possess freedom of will; and it will be maintained, as a consequence, that, agreeably to this illustration, neither do others who perish owe the cause of their destruction to the freedom of their own will.”
“That expression, also, in Ezekiel, when he says, I will take away their stony hearts, and will give them hearts of flesh, that they may walk in My precepts, and keep My ways, may impress some, inasmuch as it seems to be a gift of God, either to walk in His ways or to keep His precepts, if He take away that stony heart which is an obstacle to the keeping of His commandments, and bestow and implant a better and more impressible heart, which is called now a heart of flesh.”
“Consider also the nature of the answer given in the Gospel by our Lord and Saviour to those who inquired of Him why He spoke to the multitude in parables. His words are: That seeing they may not see; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven them. The words, moreover, used by the Apostle Paul, that it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy; in another passage also, that to will and to do are of God: and again, elsewhere,”
“Therefore has He mercy upon whom He will, and whom He will He hardens. You will say then unto me, Why does He yet find fault? For who shall resist His will? O man, who are you that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him who has formed it, Why have you made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another to dishonour? — these and similar declarations seem to have no small influence in preventing very many from believing that every one is to be considered as having freedom over his own will, and in making it appear to be a consequence of the will of God whether a man is either saved or lost.”
Origen, who are these “very many” in the early church who did not believe in free will? If there are very many, you should be able to quote, say, a half dozen of them.
Early in this thread, I posted 18 quotes from early Christian writers, each of whom affirmed that people have free will. Two of these quotes are from Origen! Here they are again:
** 1.** 100-165 AD : Justin Martyr
“We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestinated that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they may be.” (First Apology ch.43 )
** 2.** [About the year 180, Florinus had affirmed that God is the author of sin, which notion was immediately attacked by Irenaeus, who published a discourse entitled: “God, not the Author of Sin.” Florinus’ doctrine reappeared in another form later in Manichaeism, and was always considered to be a dangerous heresy by the early fathers of the church.]
3. 130-200 AD : Irenaeus
“This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God…And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice…If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things and to abstain from others?” (Against Heresies XXXVII )
4. 150-190 AD : Athenagoras
“men…have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honor the good or punish the bad; unless vice and virtue were in their own power, and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them, and others faithless)…”(Embassy for Christians XXIV )
**5. ** 150-200 AD : Clement of Alexandria
“Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary.” (Miscellanies, book 1, ch.17)
6. 154-222 AD : Bardaisan of Syria
“How is it that God did not so make us that we should not sin and incur condemnation? —if man had been made so, he would not have belonged to himself but would have been the instrument of him that moved him…And how in that case, would man differ from a harp, on which another plays; or from a ship, which another guides: where the praise and the blame reside in the hand of the performer or the steersman…they being only instruments made for the use of him in whom is the skill? But God, in His benignity, chose not so to make man; but by freedom He exalted him above many of His creatures.” (Fragments )
7. 155-225 AD : Tertullian
“I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God’s image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature.” (Against Marcion, Book II ch.5 )
**8. ** 185-254 AD : Origen
“This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the church that every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition.” (De Principiis, Preface )
185-254 AD : Origen
“There are, indeed, innumerable passages in the Scriptures which establish with exceeding clearness the existence of freedom of will.” (De Principiis, Book 3, ch.1 )
** 9.** 250-300 AD : Archelaus
“There can be no doubt that every individual, in using his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he chooses.” (Disputation with Manes, secs.32,33 )
10. 260-315 AD : Methodius
“Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.” (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, discourse 8, chapter 16 )
11. 312-386 AD : Cyril of Jerusalem
“The soul is self-governed: and though the Devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will. He pictures to thee the thought of fornication: if thou wilt, thou rejectest. For if thou wert a fornicator by necessity then for what cause did God prepare hell? If thou wert a doer of righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but never was it crowned for its gentleness; since its gentle quality belongs to it not from choice but by nature.” (Lecture IV 18 )
12. 347-407 AD : John Chrysostom
“All is in God’s power, but so that our free-will is not lost…it depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first choose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free-will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help…It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God’s to perfect and bring to the end.” (On Hebrews, Homily 12 )
13. 120-180 AD: Tatian
“We were not created to die. Rather, we die by our own fault. Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it.” (Address to the Greeks, 11)
** 14.** (died 180 AD):Melito
“There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil manner to life, because you are a free man.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 8, page 754)
15. 163-182 AD:Theophilus
“If, on the other hand, he would turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he would himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power of himself.” (Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 27)
16. 130-200 AD:Irenaeus
“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds’…And ‘Why call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do the things that I say?’…All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man…For it is in man’s power to disobey God and to forfeit what is good.” (Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 37)
17. 150-200 AD:Clement of Alexandria
“We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.” (The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6)
18. 155-225: Tertullian
“I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power…For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance. (Against Marcion, Book 2, Chapter 5)
I just happened upon the quote while searching for a known Origen reference in De Principiis to aionios punishment (Mt.25:46) being corrective, remedial and finite. It quite shocked me, since Origen appears to be referring to a very large number of Christians within the church who rejected the doctrine of libertarian free will. How long this had been the case is not stated in the bit i posted & i haven’t read the entire page.
Reading & researching the church fathers on this topic has not been of great interest to me & something i’ve left to others who have already done the work, or those who will. So i won’t be providing a half dozen names today, but if you look into it you may very well find them yourself via the references i’ve provided at the linked post below.
At face value the out of context English language quotes may seem to support a belief in freewill by some of the early church fathers. Ideally one would read the remarks in their original languages - usually Latin or Koine Greek - to see if there is any merit to the English translations you’ve provided. And read everything alleged to be written by all ECF to see if they are consistent or contradict themselves & each other re freewill. That’s beyond my capabilities & an endeavor that could take a lifetime.
I would guess that “very many” opponents of freewill would be a number much greater than the small number of 14 different authors you have quoted English renderings of. And therefore would include many of your typical laymen of the day, possibly a church majority.
The church had centuries to delete any references by church fathers to doctrines it didn’t approve of. As it is said, the conquerors write history. Although does not number two on your list refer to one such rejecter of freewill & at roughly about the same time as Clement of Alexandria?
AFAIK Origen’s concern was that a denial of freewill would lead to sin. Perhaps he would have had a different attitude living in the 21st century after comparing the churches that believe in freewill & those that deny freewill.
See also my previous response to you on this same topic here:
Re: Poll: Can I be a Calvinist and a Universalist?
by Origen; » Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:12 am
by Paidion » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:52 am
If you want to prove free will doesn’t exist, just prove that zombies are theologically and scientifically possible 
And let me share this article I’ve share previously, from the Patheos evangelical newsletter:
What Should Christians Think about Satan, Demons, and Zombies?
Please. This is important! Watch the 15 minute video - by the seminary trained minister. 
Let me quote a bit - from the accompanying article
P.S. Some folks here might not like the “Hollywood make-believe”, zombie GIF images. So if I can substitute a “cartoon” variation instead, I will do so. 
I also believe in complete sovereignity. And God working all things according to His will. Including evil (Ra) Isaiah 45:7.
Furthermore the very idea that God will not let someone simply die but be raised and reconciled is against the notion of “free” will. As well as many other theosiphical arguments and verses of scripture that show who is in control.
Ive always been a big zombie fan. I’ve seen even the worst B rated zombie movies and played some od the worst zombie games ever. I used to think “man I’d be prepared” but the more I thought about it I will like “nah probably not” the real threat wouldn’t be the dead, itd be who is still left alive and their intentions! A man with nothing left to lose is scarier than the biggest horde of zombies.
Thanks for relating that story about F and Kathryn Kuhlman. Here’s another true story.
A non-Christian doctor had three health conditions—one of them being deaf in the right ear. When Kathryn Kuhlman came to the area, his wife wanted him to go on the supposition that he might be healed. The man didn’t want to go, believing it was a waste of time, but his wife bugged him until he finally consented to go. At one point in the meeting Kathryn announced that someone with a deaf right ear and (she named the other two conditions) was being healed, and asked him to come up to the front. “That’s you, Dear!” his wife exclaimed. “Nah, that’s nonsense,” and the man didn’t go forward. On the trip home in their car, at one point, the wife said, “Have you noticed that you haven’t turned your left ear toward me as usual, when I talk?” The man was astonished. “That’s right!” When he arrived home, he checked himself for the other two conditions. To his amazement, he found that he didn’t have them.
The couple returned, attending the meeting the next night. The doctor apologized to Kathryn for not believing her. The miracle of his healing softened his heart, and He was led to trust in Christ that second evening.
Theosophical or theological?
Depends on how one defines “free will”. A man bound by chains to a wall & locked inside of a prison cell is free to move about, but within limits. He is not free to fly to the moon. Although a man may be a slave of sin (bound by its chains), this does not necessarily rule out him having a libertarian free will (LFW) to be able to cry to God for deliverance when God enlightens & empowers him to do so.
Determinists have their definition of “free will” which is not the same as Libertarian “free will”. Both sides offer many arguments & scriptures (“proof texts”) allegedly in support of their view. How these scriptures are best harmonized is a matter of opinion, debate or discussion. Some others don’t try to harmonize them but accept both as true & call it a Divine mystery.
You can’t call a determinist a blasphemer when you, yourself, aren’t a trinitarian. From my understanding, even by the traditions and creeds of men, determinism was never deemed heresy but non-trinitarianism was.
You have also called me a “blashpemer” and charged me with “attacking the character of God” for attributing Him with comeplete control of His universe. Usually, in our past conversations, you’ve been patient,probably even more so than me, but you should avoid calling people a blasphemer when your views could be called the same.
I was reading a few replies here,to about two hundred, and it seemed you were also leaning towards God be and actively completely sovereign but youve already advocated free will. Is it more so playing advocate for both sides? Or is it something you still aren’t sure 100% on either account? Either or is fine. Im just curious as some of your past posts on this thread definitely makes a good argument from the viewpoint of God working through His creation.
I was rather shocked to read this. I have no memory of having called you a blasphemer. I looked through the posts in this thread and couldn’t find it. Was it in a different thread? At any rate, whether I did nor not, clearly you feel that I did, and I wish to express my sincere regrets.
As for non-Trinitarianism being a heresy, it is true that it is considered such by many people, and was considered such by many in the past. However, no Christians considered it such, prior to the fourth century when it was invented.
Well, to be fair to Paidion…This forum has a search function (it’s the magnifying glass, folks)…And I did search for the word “blasphemer”. And NOTHING came up, except for the post - where Paidion is accused by you. Perhaps he used another word and you thought he said “blasphemer”. Can you please link to (or quote), the exact post in question?
In legal cases, the judge often asks counsel - to lay some foundation. Luckily, the non-denominational site - Got Questions - does this.
I was leaning against LFW at that time. Now i’m leaning a bit the other way. If you will recall i posted to you & referred in another thread to Robin Parry’s comment in “The Evangelical Universalist” re the issue in reconciling the BOL with UR, etc.
On another post. When we were talking about this same subject. You asked if God determines evil in which i responded saying “yes for a purpose of greater good” and cited Isaiah 45:7 when you then said I was “attacking the character of God”. Which to me is a more round about way of calling me a blasphemer. As well as the original poster saying the same thing here and you called it blasphemy.
No worriss though. I mean it did kinda upset me because I truly love God with all my being. But I’m actually quite used to being called a blasphemer now, believing in the salvation of all and such lol.
I was more so, not saying it to condemn you, but just to make you realize all of us here have views that could be considered blasphemy. so we should be kind and not accuse one another of such things as blasphemy and attacking the character of God.
I’m actually stepping away from debating for a little bit. I don’t think im ready yet, for more reasons than one. But i felt this needed further explaination.
Ill be reading, liking, and consoling those with doubts and fears but, apart from wrapping up my last post with daveB, im mainy going to keep my faith to myself for the time being.
here it is.
In making that statement, I didn’t call YOU a blasphemer. I made the general statement that it is blasphemy to affirm that God causes any evil. Why? Because evil is that which harms people, whereas all of God’s acts are act of LOVE. He always does what is the very best for people. That is His character!